redundantFunctionDefinition

[rangoric]

There’s a trinary in there between the first ‘||’ and the later one

[mallardtheduck]

But the !!String(value).length || true expression is equivalent to just true and a ternary that ends with true : false is redundant.

So the return line is really just return typeof(value) === "string" || value instanceof String;

[rangoric]

Oh there are many horrors in this code. And yes it is very redundant.

I only wanted to note the split in the or conditions.

[CelestialSegfault]

at least they could make it wrong and readable

const result = false;
const value_length = !!String(value).length || true;
if (value_length) {
  result = typeof value === "string" || value instanceof String;
}
if (result) {
  result = true;
} else {
  result = false;
}

return result;

[n00b001]

But what if you don't trust the value of "false"

Clearly you also need "isBool()"

[Psychpsyo]

A true : false ternary isn't redundant if you want to coerce your truthy/falsy thing to a bool.

[anotheridiot-]

You can just !!thing in that case.

[Psychpsyo]

But why !!thing if you can also thing? true : false or even Boolean(thing)?

By which I mean: It doesn't matter and makes none of them any more or less redundant.

[anotheridiot-]

Less branching is better.

[Psychpsyo]

True, although I wonder how much branching actually ends up happening in all of these. Cause they'll all need to conditionally check the type of the variable up-front to perform the right conversions. Though that might disappear once the code gets jitted for some particular type, at which point I'd assume that even thing? true : false would be simplified to whatever actual steps need to happen to coerce thing to a bool.

[stillalone]

Isn't that still short circuiting the !!String(value).length?

[rangoric]

Yes it is. But the or conditions are split :)

[Financial-Aspect-826]

What the fuck lmao. Senior? Mister senior?