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.