76
Self-documenting Code (lackofimagination.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] steventhedev@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago

Ew no.

Abusing language features like this (boolean expression short circuit) just makes it harder for other people to come and maintain your code.

The function does have opportunity for improvement by checking one thing at a time. This flattens the ifs and changes them into proper sentry clauses. It also opens the door to encapsulating their logic and refactoring this function into a proper validator that can return all the reasons a user is invalid.

Good code is not "elegant" code. It's code that is simple and unsurprising and can be easily understood by a hungover fresh graduate new hire.

[-] sip@programming.dev 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

assert(isPasswordGood(...)) is already in ~~the language.~~ node

[-] traches@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 day ago

Agreed. OP was doing well until they replaced the if statements with ‚function call || throw error’. That’s still an if statement, but obfuscated.

Don't mind the || but I do agree if you're validating an input you'd best find all issues at once instead of "first rule wins".

[-] rooster_butt@lemm.ee 2 points 14 hours ago

Short circuiting conditions is important. Mainly for things such as:

if(Object != Null && Object.HasThing) ...

Without short circuit evaluation you end up with a null pointer exception.

[-] hex@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

I mean, boolean short circuit is a super idiomatic pattern in Javascript

[-] arendjr@programming.dev 5 points 16 hours ago

I think that’s very team/project dependent. I’ve seen it done before indeed, but I’ve never been on a team where it was considered idiomatic.

[-] hex@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

That makes sense.

[-] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

Because on JS the goal is to shave bytes to save money on data transfer rates

[-] hex@programming.dev 1 points 16 hours ago

It's not that deep. It looks nice, and is easy to understand.

[-] YaBoyMax@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago

This is the most important thing I've learned since the start of my career. All those "clever" tricks literally just serve to make the author feel clever at the expense of clarity and long-term manintainability.

[-] verstra@programming.dev 19 points 1 day ago

I agree, this is an anti-pattern for me.

Having explicit throw keywords is much more readable compared to hiding flow-control into helper functions.

[-] lmaydev@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

100% un-nesting that if would have been fine.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Good code is not “elegant” code. It’s code that is simple and unsurprising and can be easily understood by a hungover fresh graduate new hire.

I wouldnt go that far, both elegance are simplicity are important. Sure using obvious and well known language feaures is a plus, but give me three lines that solve the problem as a graph search over 200 lines of object oriented boilerplate any day. Like most things it's a trade-off, going too far in either direction is bad.

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
76 points (85.2% liked)

Programming

17241 readers
263 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS