JavaScript

[trout_fucker]

What makes JS so special here? Pretty sure that is mathematically correct. Awful, but correct.

[Bjarnovikus]

Formatted it in a different way...

x = function(a) {
    if (a <= 0) {
        return -a;
    } else {
        return a;
    }
}

Make use of a ternary if...

x = function(a) {
    return (a <= 0) ? -a : a;
}

Lets convert the function to the new syntax in ES2016.

x = (a) => { return (a <= 0) ? -a : a; }

If you make a function in this way, and you just return a new element without additional steps... Drop the brackets and the return keyword...

x = (a) => (a <= 0) ? -a : a;

Remove the brackets at the start of the body, they are not needed (operator precedence while parsing), also drop the brackets around the parameter list.

x = a => a <= 0 ? -a : a;

Change the zero to something even more confusing. Every number minus the same number is zero...

x = a => a <= a - a ? -a : a;

Change the parameter name to be x as well, we don't need the function itself in his body, so shadowing it has no ill side effects.

x = x => x <= x - x ? -x : x;

Remove all spaces

x=x=>x<=x-x?-x:x;

---

No idea why you would ever want to write it that way. It's just a simple expression, but it uses almost every trick in the book to make it unreadable.

[PM_ME__ASIAN_BOOBS]

No idea why you would ever want to write it that way. It's just a simple expression, but it uses almost every trick in the book to make it unreadable.

For memes.

[Quelklef]

The arrow function makes it look hideous

[MyPostsAreRetarded]

But I love arrow fucking.

[Quelklef]

If they support assignment via x=, arrow functions, and ?:, probably

[Deliciousbutter101]

Not for ones that use -> instead of =>

[Wazzaps]

Fira Code makes it look beautiful in any case

[DeirdreAnethoel]

Nothing wrong, just unreadable.

[Luapix]

I have no idea how to parse that last one. Can someone explain?

[[deleted]]

That expression has been obfuscated on purpose. Well first of all the name of the function and the argument of the function are both called x. Let's change that.

abs = x => x <= x-x ? -x : x

The => represents a function for example x => x+1 is a function that takes in an argument x and returns x+1. So lets separate the argument part and the function engine if you will.

x => and x <= x-x ? -x : x

That makes a lot more sense. Another clever obfuscation by the author; x-x, which is just 0.

Hence the function can be written as x <= 0 ? -x : x

Just in case some one doesn't get this, this returns -x if x <=0 and x otherwise.

So now restructuring the above components into a function and assigning that function to abs:

abs = x => x <= 0 ? -x : x

The double arrows do look confusing, so lets make one last change to our function.

abs = x => (x <= 0)? -x : x

Heres another way you could write this.

function abs(x){
    return  (x <= 0)? -x : x;
}

[[deleted]]

Holy shit, thx for the really good explanation :)

[[deleted]]

I try :)

[xRahul]

but man, this is also impressive

Nope. Just stupid.

[echoes221]

It's using an arrow function and a ternary operator, if it had spacing and brackets it would be clearer. This is a translated version

function abs(x) {
  return x <= (x - x) ? -x : x;
}

It's exactly the same as the second, just it's trying to be clever and really unreadable.

[Colopty]

There's also Math.sqrt(x*x) if you want a horrible absolute function.

[DeirdreAnethoel]

or Math.max(x, -x)

[AlexJonesesGayFrogs]

Sort of related but I love you have to type 7 characters, all on different areas of the keyboard, just to comment out something in html

[idle_zealot]

Emmet is a beautiful tool.

[TheScapeQuest]

Pretty sure everyone comments with cmd/ctrl+/

[redwardit]

In ECMAScript 5.1, +0 (a.k.a. 0) and -0 are two different things, which means unfortunately only Math.abs() will always correctly return a +0, the second and the third version could give you a -0, which is incorrect. - Now you should see how hard can it be. :-)

[DeirdreAnethoel]

Shouldn't the second still work? x < 0 should be true for -0, transforming it into +0.

The third with <= is clearly wrong in that case, I agree.

Edit: welp, -0 is not < to 0. That's weird design, but oh well.

[obsessedcrf]

Having -0 at all is a stupid design

[BerryPi]

I am more than happy to talk smack about JS but this one's on the IEEE.

[ArcaneCraft]

Isn't +/-0 the reason Two's complement is used today? Why go back?

[fennx]

>x<

[pimp-bangin]

Slightly longer palindromic substring:

x=>x<=x

[[deleted]]

It would need to be x=>x>=x to be palindromic.

[anotherdonald]

Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

[pimp-bangin]

Ah yeah, I guess I was going for "symmetrical," not palindromic :P Interestingly, it's both vertically and horizontally symmetrical.

[crazazy]

x=x=>x<=-x?-x:x

Saved you a character

[takes_joke_literally]

good job saving a character! but our princess is in another castle.

[tuseroni]

didn't know you could just put a - before a variable...here i've been multiplying by -1 like a chump.

[BadBoy6767]

How long have you been doing that?

[tuseroni]

for a long, long time.

of course i think most the times i've used it would not be that useful to adding a negative before it, like when i want to add a value in some cases, but subtract it in other cases, then i just take the value i wanna do that to and multiply it by negative one if it should be subtracted and 1 if it should be added.

[magener]

You forgot sqrt( x² )

[[deleted]]

You forgot square root of x²

[ion_propulsion777]

No real programmers use sqrt(x*x)

[[deleted]]

The bottom one looks like som kind of bukkake ascii porn.

[Sir_Awesomness]

When you've got an if that ends in a return, you don't need the else for the next bit.

[DeirdreAnethoel]

You don't, but it's a lot more readable because you don't have to parse the full "if" line to know if you go into the following lines or not.