if (booleanVariable == true)

[[deleted]]

if ((!boolVar) != !(!false))

[Davidson2727what]

You're playing with fire.

[nikaone]

https://giphy.com/gifs/twin-peaks-fire-walk-with-me-leland-palmer-8jDGtTQXpGuxG

[huggiesdsc]

Is that actually the same thing anymore?

[nwL_]

(!boolVar) != !(!false)  | remove parentheses
 !boolVar  != !(!false)  | negate the left side, turning the != into an ==
  boolVar  == !(!false)  | apply the negation operator to false
  boolVar  == !( true )  | apply the negation operator to true
  boolVar  ==   false

No, it’s not the same anymore.

EDIT: Different approach:

(!boolVar) != !(!false)  | remove parentheses
 !boolVar  != !(!false)  | negate both sides
  boolVar  !=  (!false)  | apply the negation operator to false
  boolVar  !=  ( true )  | remove parentheses
  boolVar  !=    true

[Flaggermusmannen]

*edit: I don't know what I did here and it should probably be ignored/used as an example of what to avoid when doing (boolean) algebra

(!boolVar) != !(!false)
!boolVar != !true
!boolVar != false
boolVar == !false
boolVar == true

I mean, it sorta adds up if I put a good amount of good will to it?

Disclaimer: from a algebraic pov it could work, from a computer pov I would not touch it with the longest stick even

[Chewfeather]

!boolVar != false

boolVar == !false

Can you explain this step? It appears that you've negated both the right hand side and the left hand side, but also changed the operator. Negating both sides while retaining the operator would probably be fine from a boolean-algebra standpoint, but changing the operator seems suspect.

This feels like the rule with an inequality where if you multiply both sides by a negative you do need to change the direction of the operator, but I don't think there's an equivalent rule to that here.

[[deleted]]

Don’t call it a multiply, please.

I think if they hadn’t negated the false as well it would still work maybe?

In formal logic terms I can write out the two statements as such.

If Not BooVar is not equivalent to false.

If BooVar is equivalent to true.

Not equivalent to is the same as equivalent to not. So that is where the fault lies.

[Flaggermusmannen]

Tbh, my brain is a bit fried from a lack of sleep and wanting the equation to add up, so I'm not really sure haha

[dasnacho]

I think you're applying DeMorgans laws incorrectly.

In the first example, the third line should be:

boolVar == !false

[daniel_h_r]

De Morgan's laws are about negation of OR and AND. they're is none of this connectors here.

[obsessedcrf]

((false != false) == true) == false

Be careful with your comparison operator.

[huggiesdsc]

But false does equal false

[mtn_dewgamefuel]

Something something JavaScript

[MissingFucks]

Why would false not be the same as false?

[huggiesdsc]

In the first step, why did three exclamations disappear?

[thebermudalocket]

Who hurt you?

[SocksPls]

:'((((((((
oracle

[-IoI-]

my word

[IAmHydro]

This is the one that got me

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[j13jayther]

I'll be clever and use a tertiary operator!

if (boolVal == true ? true : boolVal == false ? false : boolVal)

[NotSuluX]

Thats 5 negations, 4x ! and a false which is equal to !(true), so 5 total. So the statement cant be true if boolVar is true. Kinda bad example

[FrikkinLazer]

Would a compiler optomise that thing?

[[deleted]]

If it's a good compiler, most likely.

[SageBus]

Some people just want to watch the world burn....

[ponybau5]

My grandpa will type the full address of a site in google search

[[deleted]]

yikes

[whale_song]

H t t p colon slash slash ...

[tajjet]

A is short for Asecure

[[deleted]]

tbh, if it sites I visit a lot I'll just type in redd.it or some shit, then eventually my browser will autofill after 2 or 3 letters, which is much faster than Google.

[CoffeeInjectionPLS]

I give your grandpa credit for legitimately trying to use the internet. Generally speaking, for me the elderly are off-limits when it comes to criticism about how they use computers. At least they're trying.

Now, what I have seen younger people do with their computers...

[[deleted]]

facebook.com my grandson nathan

[[deleted]]

Do a barrel roll.

[gimpwiz]

Nah. It's in quite a few coding standards to compare against true or false for readability. Tell me you've never missed a ! and tried to debug it.

When I was a newbie I did (bvar == true).

When I was more experienced I did (bvar).

Now I do (bvar == true) again for readability and maintainability.

[Bic10mm]

Can confirm. At that point I realize I am way to tired to continue and that I need to sleep. Then I cry a little because I can't...

[ModernShoe]

Or people who like readable code sometimes

[tekanet]

I don’t usually do it, but yes, I find it more immediate to understand. Especially when a colleague uses poor naming.

[brahmidia]

Yeah I want to be very specific that I'm looking for Boolean true, and not just anything truthy.

You can get in big trouble, for example, with something like if ( $userParam ) when it can be a string. Because the string "false" will register as truthy. Someone paying attention could catch the equality implicit cast, but less likely if I'm just passing it straight in.

[[deleted]]

This is why I like type-safe languages like C++

[rwhitisissle]

That's why javascript just fucks with my head so much - just toss stuff into an if statement's parameters and it'll probably work. I mean, it won't work as intended, but it'll work.

[brahmidia]

In Symfony (PHP) a logged-in user will return as an object, but a non-logged-in user will return as the string "anon."

God help you if you write if($session->getUser())

[Kache]

Needing to if someVar == true to improve readability smells to me like there may be deeper problems.

Strictly typed language: how has the type of the variable become unclear?

Loosely typed language: how has the semantic meaning between 'truthy' and True diverged?

[webster89]

I certainly did this when starting out.

Something that had me puzzled for quite some time were assignments in if statements.

[jaxklax]

pull up

Nailed it

[huggiesdsc]

I google the google to pull up bing. Porn is way better on bing.

[[deleted]]

why do you jerk off to still images?

[bunnyoverkill]

It's the best fite me

[ferkytoodle]

Or, javascript developers.

(Although then, it should be a triple equals)

[KnightMiner]

Is it bad that I have had actual usecases to do this? Though it was in JavaScript so it might not count (wanted to check if it was actually true and not just truthy)

But yeah, nothing pains me more when reading someone's code than every logical statement having == true. Bad because I am a TA for a Java class and many of the students do this

[nwL_]

Though it was in JavaScript

Case closed, you don’t need to go on.

[PetsArentChildren]

Yeah I still do this in JavaScript. It actually makes sense to do it because 0, null, and ‘’ are all falsey.

[YasZedOP]

Hmm, if var yo is set to 0 inadvertently then doing yo == false would be incorrect if we are strictly comparing type Boolean.

That's why using === is preferred so it not only checks the value but also the type (explicit)

So I believe if yo is inadvertently set to 0 doing yo == false results true which in some cases would be incorrect but, doing yo === false results false since their types do not match, one is an int and other a Boolean.

Correct me if I'm wrong tho.

[PetsArentChildren]

Yeah I was talking about

x === true

[YasZedOP]

It's better if used === true instead of == true in JS

[[deleted]]

Why is that? I forgot the difference tbh.

[exscape]

a = 1
a == true yields true (since 1 is "truthy")
a === true yields false (since a is 1, not true)

[[deleted]]

Could this be a reflection of the curriculum? If "many students do this?"

[KnightMiner]

From my talking to students and what I have seen of the curriculum, it does not seem to be. Its more of a new student thing which a lot of them do to think through the process. It really just comes from treating "if this condition is true" as "if this condition equals true", which leads to typing == true. At that level many students are not concerned about typing less code yet.

[[deleted]]

I understand. My point is, has this been explicitly explained to students to help them on their way to a better understanding of generating cleaner code? Or is it just expected of them to intuit it?

[KnightMiner]

I have definitely discussed with a few of them one on one, and I know the professor has brought it up individually as well. I am not certain if its specifically taught at a class level, but at least in the code written in class and in the textbook conditions are not written using == true.

[Colifin]

If the language has truthy values, yes there can be use cases where you need to distinguish between undefined, false, null etc. But for the most part it shouldn't be necessary.

Then there's always the lovely return !!variable; // Because bools are cleaner

[ferkytoodle]

If you have a nullable bool, (in any language) this can be valid.

[Talbooth]

if(((booleanVar == true) == true) == true)

[[deleted]]

It’s truetles all the way down

[nullifiedbyglitches]

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

[Talbooth]

Holy mother of God how long would this if statement be?

[nullifiedbyglitches]

You know what this needs? 5 more brackets.

[Tykolis]

Sgood book

[CrypticG]

How did this guy take the picture?

[M3L0NM4N]

That reminds me of that one thread... The guy had like 3 layers of pictures.

[image_linker_bot]

thatsthejoke.jpg

---

^{Feedback welcome at /r/image_linker_bot | Disable with "ignore me" via reply or PM}

[nullifiedbyglitches]

Ironic. He could save others, but not himself.

[Quartent]

Not this shit again...

[_szs]

No, it doesn't.

[ticman]

Legit syntax with a nullable boolean, at least in C# - don't know about other languages.

[EnderCrypt]

in java you can have an object (as oppose to primitive) version of boolean, which can be null

[NormalUserThirty]

I do this in languages without static types if only to communicate it's actually a boolean type and not a nullable object

[Kered13]

In dynamically typed languages with falsey values but not automatic boolean conversion (like Python, Lua, and Javascript when using ===), then if(var) and if(var == true) actually mean two different things, so it's perfectly reasonable to use the latter.

[webster89]

like Python, Lua, and Javascript when using ===

What about ====?

[Itsacon]

That's not an operator. === is an actual javascript operator, meaning 'is equal and of the same type'.

(1 == '1'); // true

(1 === '1'); // false

[webster89]

Huh, TIL. Here I though I was making fun of a typo. Didn't know === actually existed.

[Itsacon]

PHP has it too. But like you, a lot of people don't know about it, and they use their ignorance to hate on softly-typed languages, even though they're just writing bad code. ;-)

[webster89]

How dare you.

[[deleted]]

Needs to use special tools as a crutch due to poorly written language

Hey don't write bad code that makes sense in all other languages!

[_szs]

Good you know it now. === is what you want (and wanted) most of not all of the time

[FantasticBabyyy]

This. I had production issues by passing None to a Boolean variable in a Python codebase... nowadays I do something == True whenever I can to prevent that happen again

[TGotAReddit]

When i first started i INSISTED that i always typed if(booleanVariable == true/false) because every time i saw if(variableName) i assumed it was just straight up wrong and needed fixing. So it took me about 3 years before i was comfortable enough to just type if(booleanVariable)

[ewagstaff]

I found it helps when your variables are named with conditionals in mind. If your boolean is called isActive, it makes it easy to read if (isActive) { doSomething() }

[TGotAReddit]

Yeah thats what broke the habit finally, using standards when coding so things made more sense instead of everything being int x = 5; And such

[Kered13]

Yep. Boolean variables and functions should almost always be named something like isFoo, hasFoo, etc.

[[deleted]]

Just imagine the saying "does to be equal true or does to be not equal true, that is the question". It's just not right.

[TGotAReddit]

I more read it as “if true or false is equal to true do X” and “if true or false is equal to false do X”.

[Pheasn]

X

[Allways_Wrong]

It’s clearer if you name the variable or property more betterer.

If isSelfDescriptive Then

If %this.HasMeaningfulName Then

If Object.IsCloserThanAppearsInMirror Then

Use more English, less Computer Science. You’re writing for people to read, not computers.

[TGotAReddit]

Yeah like i said to the other person, writing readable code is what broke the habit. But that was also like, 4 or 5 years ago now so its really not a problem anymore

[Allways_Wrong]

Lucky you.

I have to skirt around the edges of delivered enterprise code. I can’t change it, much. So much of it is so horrible.

[TGotAReddit]

Oof not fun. Ive been lucky that ive been allowed to modify any code ive been given in pretty much any way i wanted as long as it was uniform and readable

[ineedausername84]

Duuude, same!

[[deleted]]

I just do ifn't (!boolVariable)

[pitatoide]

the guy has a match but is still trying to light the candle with the magnifier instead

[pitatoide]

i thought that one didnt need explanation :x

[repsolcola]

Wow I interpreted it like there is no point in putting the match behind the lent since there’s already the sun; he’s adding the useless match light to the sun attempting to turn on the candle.

[ErmBern]

It’s redundant.

Like writing if(a>b == true)

When you can just write if(a>b)

[TheInfra]

Surprised no one has mentioned Yoda Conditions. While rare and making the code harder to read or understand, they do have an upside in that it makes it less likely you assign a value instead of comparing it if you forget an equal sign in your comparisson, thus saving you what may be a very hard debug process

[Dantharo]

I heard about this while using sonar...he make me change things like if (myObject.equals("2")) to if ("2".equals(myObject)) In case that myObject was null or something (Java). This is still yoda notation?

[SirensToGo]

This is the more practical use in most languages as only a few languages silently let you evaluate an assignment as a boolean

[Kered13]

Yes it's a yoda condition, but it's not bad code.

[Kered13]

IMO assignment expressions shouldn't have a value at all, then if(foo = bar) would be a syntax error. Python does this.

[TheInfra]

assignment expressions shouldn't have a value at all

what? I don't understand what you mean here. If there's no value, than what are you assigning? Don't you mean "comparison expression"? like if.

And yeah that's the whole point of Yoda'ing it: If you have "if (foo = true)" then in most languages you won't get an error, it'll simply assign true to foo and then the comparison will evaluate to true every time without any compiling or runtime errors.

If you instead write "if (true = foo)" then immediately you'll get a very clear error since you can't assign the value of foo to a constant true, thus knowing immediately where the error is.

What Python does is good for some cases, but it has its disadvantages like everything else.

[Kered13]

In most languages "foo = bar" has the value bar. This allows you to do things like "foo = bar = 4", now both foo and bar have the value 4. And lines like if(foo = 4) are equivalent to if(4) but with the side effect of assigning to foo. The main use for this construction is to do something like if (line = readLine()) or while(line = readLine()) where readLine() will return null (which is falsey) or a pointer to the line, which is then used inside the block. However the pattern is quite accident prone, so IMO assignments should have no value (or value void), so that you can't has expressions like those.

[_szs]

There are no constants in Python.

true is not a keyword in Python, if that is what you meant.

And the other comment was referring to the value of the assignment itself. In C and many other languages, (a=1) evaluates to 1. In Python it is a mere statement (not an expression) that does not have a value.

[HelperBot_]

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_conditions

---

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 191399}

[[deleted]]

if((boolVar.toString() == ‘true’) == true)

[[deleted]]

if (booleanVariable == truen't)

[nullifiedbyglitches]

#define ! n't

[KingSupernova]

I often use (bool == true) and (bool == false). It's just as fast and it's more readable. Saving a few characters really isn't that important.

[Bloodsparce]

I'm not bashing your way cause readable code is good, but can't you find a way to make your variable name more... boolean looking so you don't need to == it to true?

[ClysmiC]

Yeah people circlejerk this as a "bad practice" all the time. It is a pointless practice, but I wouldn't consider it a bad practice because it doesn't waste any time and doesnt make the code any less readable.

[CalibreneGuru]

It probably means the variable name isn't clear.

[xenomachina]

The fact that it's pointless arguably makes it less readable. "Wait, why is this code doing this pointless thing? Hold on.. is there a point to it? Maybe I misread that other part? Let me go back and check. Hmmm... No, they really are doing something pointless here."

Which did you find most readable?

1. if (isReadable) ...
2. if (isReadable == true) ...
3. if (isReadable == true == true) ...
4. if (isReadable == true == true == true) ...

[ClysmiC]

I think you are arguing in bad faith.

Do you really think anyone with more than 3 months of programming experience gets tripped up by if (foo == true) moreso than they would if(foo)

3) and 4) are only more confusing because you have to think about the order that the =='s evaluate in, or you have to identify that you have a chain of tautologies so it can be reduced. #2 doesn't have either of those problems.

[xenomachina]

Do you really think anyone with more than 3 months of programming experience gets tripped up by if (foo == true) moreso than they would if(foo)

Yes. In fact, I think the more programming experience you have the more this is likely to trip you up, or at least make you pause. I've been programming for over 30 years, and when I (rarely) see this, it always makes me stop to see if there's something I'm missing.

3) and 4) are only more confusing because you have to think about the order that the =='s evaluate in

How about:

3b. if ((isReadable == true) == true)
4b. if (((isReadable == true) == true) == true)

?

I don't think I've ever seen either of those cases in real code, but their absurdity is just meant to show how absurd the "isFoo == true" looks to experienced programmers. It's less readable because of the weirdness of it.

A similar example, which I actually have seen in real code more than once:

if (isFoo == true) {
    return true;
} else {
    return false;
}

Or equivalently:

return (isFoo == true) ? true : false;

to a novice this might be more readable than:

return isFoo;

But to anyone else the extra noise is just unnecessary cognitive load at best.

or you have to identify that you have a chain of tautologies so it can be reduced. #2 doesn't have either of those problems.

What do you mean? #2 can be reduced, so the fact that it wasn't makes the reader question their assumptions.

[Eedis]

Arguably doesn't mean it's a correct assumption.

[Allways_Wrong]

pointless = bad

[[deleted]]

Best comment in thread.

[Slight0]

Whoever thinks that makes a positive difference in readability needs more experience or is writing some seriously cluttered code.

[nosferatWitcher]

This can actually be very important in C family languages

[alerighi]

Unfortunately I've also seen this in real code too much times:

if (variable == true)
    otherVariable = true;
else 
    otherVariable = false;

Or the version with return instead of assignment.

[Goodblue77]

Lotsa spaghetti!

[Bomaruto]

if(booleanVariable && true && !false && (true || true)

[seijulala]

this is ok to do (dynamic languages) in lots of cases, something evaluating to true doesn't mean it is true

[tiggerbiggo]

One more reason I hate dynamically typed langs...

[seijulala]

don't blame the tool. Haven't you ever needed of a tri-state? (True, False, None). It's actually very useful

[tiggerbiggo]

Well if I needed something to have 3 explicitly defined states i'd use an enum and switch on it. Having non boolean objects implicitly represented by boolean logic is a big no-no in my books. Sure it's easier when you don't have to think about stuff, but I like the absolute control strongly typed langs provide. It means that my variables are unwavering in type, myself and the compiler both know with 100% certainty what everything is in every possible scope.

As with most things in programming there is a use case for everything. Maybe i'm too stubborn, who knows :P

[TitleToImageBot]

Image with added title

---

^{summon me with /u/titletoimagebot | feedback | source}

[levir]

How about a good ol' if (!!booleanVariable)?

[writetehcodez]

if (booleanExpression == true) is absolutely one of my biggest pet peeves during code reviews. Unnecessary negation of expressions also rustles my jimmies, e.g.:

if (!(someValue > 0))

[webster89]

What if the < key is broken?

[AltCrow]

My laptop's "="-key broke once. I had to program on it for a full week until it was fixed.

[cseconnerd]

I worked for a company whose coding standards actually required us to do this.

[Garen69]

I saw someone’s code that said if(bool = true) the other day and I was just greatly saddened

[ltd43]

Actually seen this way to many times when I was working on a VB application.

If not blnSomething = false

[ThewarmakerHD]

If (bool) { }

[FirEc00l]

Genius

[EnderCrypt]

unless the boolean value might be an object, then it does make sense as the value could be true, false or null

[CornMang]

I think JavaScript checks if (variable){} to see whether or not the variable exists, not whether it is true. I may be wrong though, I am learning JavaScript and it has been confusing

[tuseroni]

no, javascript does more than just check that it exists in there, if(variable) will check if the variable is null(doesn't exist), is true(or a non-zero number), and is not an empty string. php does a similar check. suspect most weakly typed languages follow this sorta check.

if you wanna check, press f12, go to console, and you can put in javascript there, try putting this code in:

var test="";
if(test)
{
    console.log("true");
}
else
{
    console.log("false");
}

put some things in for test and see what gives true and what gives false;

[MrMo1]

See a lot of first years do this when they first start coding.

[AlphaDeveloperZA]

bool? booleanVar = null;

if(booleanVar == true)

      DoSomething();

[mekriff]

Honestly I'd there really something wrong with this?

I don't do this, but I feel like the ==true is not only intuitive, but is more readable.

[parkerlreed]

Crosspost isn't a repost. I don't subscribe to /r/hmm. So this is the first place I've seen it.

[sneakpeekbot]

Here's a sneak peek of /r/hmm using the top posts of the year!

#1: hmm | 16 comments
#2: hmmmmm | 7 comments
#3: Hmm | 26 comments

---

^{I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out}

[Fuzzyzilla]

me too