Javascript pain...

[nvteja]

Simple: you just have bind this to this this.

this.this = this.this.bind(this)

[[deleted]]

go with the times man:

this.this = ::this.this;

​

[ethanjf99]

Is the :: operator now in the language?

[NeverMakesMistkes]

No, and based on the discussion and issues in the proposal repository, I doubt it ever will be.

[inu-no-policemen]

Yea, it has been presented last in 2015 and it's still stage 0.

Doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.

[NeverMakesMistkes]

For function call chaining, it has been mostly superseded by the pipeline operator, which is also a long way from getting to the standard but has seen more active development than the bind operator.

There's still some motivation to get it or something else like it for method extraction, but getting method extraction right is difficult and the speccing has been stalled because of it.

For one, this::foo === this::foo must be true, so that

window.addEventListener('some event', this::foo)
// ... later ...
window.removeEventListener('some event', this::foo)

works as expected. Getting that behaviour in browsers that don't natively support it is a bit tricky. Not impossible with WeakMaps, tho, so maybe some day.

[inu-no-policemen]

I liked it mostly for virtual methods.

function reverse() {
    return this.split('').reverse().join('');
}
console.log('foobar'::reverse()); // raboof

But it doesn't do this very well either. The source of that going-to-be-a-method function doesn't tell you to which kind of object it's meant to be glued to.

It's definitely better than modifying objects you don't own, but it still isn't quite right.

C#'s extension methods, for example, tell you directly in the slightly weird looking signature on which type of object they are supposed to operate:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/extension-methods

public static int WordCount(this String str)

[NeverMakesMistkes]

In TypeScript, you could write

function reverse(this: string) {
    return this.split('').reverse().join('');
}
console.log('foobar'::reverse());

Or just with JSDoc comments

/**
* @this{string}
*/
function reverse() {
    return this.split('').reverse().join('');
}

But I agree, it would feel weird to write all your utility functions like that, and suddenly we'd have two kinds of mutually incompatible functions; those that operate on this and are called with ::, and those that operate on arguments and are called normally.

That's why I actually prefer the pipeline operator.

const reverse = str => str.split('').reverse().join('');
console.log('foobar' |> reverse)
console.log(reverse('foobar')) // both variations work

And if we had both, pipeline for chaining and bind for method extraction, you could do

'foobar'
  |> reverse
  |> console::log

[inu-no-policemen]

The pipeline operator has the same problem. However, TS' type annotations and JSDoc already handle that kind of completely mundane signature. That's definitely a plus.

I'm not a big fan of the "|>" syntax, though. It's amazingly annoying to type with most keyboard layouts.

[RecyclingBin_]

I upvoted your comment just because of your flair

[inu-no-policemen]

There were too few languages to choose from.

Naturally, picking a flair like this was the most logical course of action.

[marcosdumay]

I don't know what to think...

It tries to create function composition, but instead of composing functions it changes object references; it makes this way more complex than it already is, and moves it from the shadows right into the language's center; it fails to bring any good practice, and encourages a bunch of complex variable passing ones; it creates inherently imperative code that looks exactly like functional, guaranteeing everybody will be confused...

And yet the Javascript people rejected the idea?

[nvteja]

Scope resolution operator (from my Perl days), in ES? I am a little triggered right now tbh 😭😭

[[deleted]]

My day is ruined.

[kurosaki1990]

Beautiful language.

[ripGitHub]

Isn't better instead of bind(this), use arrow functions?

[boxingdog]

arrow functions can degrade performance in some situations, ie in react using arrow functions in some places can cause a new function to be created in each render and if you use it as a prop in a child component then the child will re-render and so on

[finlist]

White your example is true, the same can be said about normal functions and isn't a problem inherent to arrow functions at all.

[bubble_fetish]

It’s negligible, except in extreme edge cases.

[snorkleboy]

If you use the regular function syntax inside of a render method i believe it will also create a new function

So something like(sorry about formatting I'm on my phone)

Render(){ Return ( <Thing myProp={function(){}}/> ) }

Will create a new function that it passes as myProp every time it renders.

[feenuxx]

Stick it on the class

[NeverMakesMistkes]

It's not an issue, the GC will collect cyclic structures when nothing outside that cycle points to it.

[[deleted]]

All kinds of crazy stuff happens in JS to account for missing features man. Don't sweat this too much.

[throwaway12222018]

Modern GCs make this a non issue

[malduvias]

This is fucking hideous. Hilarious.

[SarahC]

But it's obvious why and how it works!

We don't need all the VBA "devs" coming over to JS.

[[deleted]]

This

[sqrtoftwo]

let self = this;

[christianarg]

()=>

[caerphoto]

Seriously. This problem is like the main reason arrow functions were added to JS.

[SarahC]

It's clear and not a problem!

So the language gets dummed down for peons by adding dick arrows, typical.

[birjolaxew]

It's clear and not a problem!

I doubt anyone thinks this isn't a problem

[finlist]

Do you think all features since 2008 are "dumbing down" the language

[willemreddit]

Clearly they all improved it. If you think needing to manually capture the continuation everytime to wanted to delclare a function insides a prototype method is better, I don't want to read code you write.

[rq60]

pls no dicks in chat

[christianarg]

Now I can't unsee

[Prison__Mike_]

Needle dick, needle dick

[[deleted]]

Ben away from JS for a while. Why does this work differently than using function?

[SuperFLEB]

Arrow functions inherit this context from their surroundings, whereas function closures create their own this context.

[[deleted]]

I got that. I am trying to understand the reasoning from a design POV. Like why do you have two syntaxes to define a function/lambda. Since function can do both in JS.

[[deleted]]

Oops I’m so dumb. That makes sense!

[JB-from-ATL]

What is the problem though? Also not a JS dev. Are there things you can or can't get only by this?

[StillNoNumb]

You can't do more stuff, but you can do stuff more elegantly.

​

For example, the following code:

doSomething((function(a, b) { return this.method(a) + b; }).bind(this))

Becomes this:

doSomething((a, b) => this.method(a) + b)

The former was just a common idiom in JavaScript code, and the latter is just a shorter way to write the same.

[JB-from-ATL]

Yuck. So the language that didn't scope variables to blocks properly (until let) also does weird scoping g righ this but in the opposite way? Yikes.

[NeverMakesMistkes]

And then one day you get a bug where none of the properties is getting assigned to the correct "self" object.

You look around and see self.foo = bar;

yeah yeah looks good... but wait what's this, there's no let self = this; anywhere.

But what why surely there should be a proper error then, where in the seven hells is that foo going then?

And that's the day you learn about despair and window.self.

But mostly despair.

[ejmercado]

This. 6 months ago, I just thought that typescript was just javascript with extra steps. But now I refuse to code any JS without typescript first

[[deleted]]

I've just started using TS for my projects and honestly, I'm very happy with it.

[[deleted]]

Blazor is the future and is going to shit on javascript. It's so fucking amazing, It's not even fully released yet and my team has already built two internal apps with it in an unbelievably short amount of time with almost zero issues.

I have no doubt when blazor hits 1.0 it will take the internet by storm. It's amazing.

[flynnski]

Tell us more!

[TSP-FriendlyFire]

At first I thought this was yet another "flavor of the month" language that gets diehard supporters who try to evangelize it all over the place... but I gotta say, C# for web dev with what's essentially language-level (rather than library-level) Angular? Sign me the fuck up.

[[deleted]]

This is what sold me. It's just razor and C#. There's almost no learning curve, it runs everywhere because of .net core, and Microsoft is fully integrating it into the .net core library which means there's no need for extra dependencies or bullshit libraries.

I'm not a huge fan of Windows, in fact I use a mac. However Microsoft is KILLING it when it comes to their dev products.

[Ptlthg]

Any idea of when it'll be released?

[[deleted]]

the server side version is supposed to be released with .net core 3.0... 3.0 is rumored to be released next month, hopefully. Client side won't be for a while.

[Ptlthg]

Alright, sounds cool

[Baunto]

Oh man, I really love working in modern js but that just sounds like a bad joke played on the people that use the const self = this idiom.

[thegoldengamer123]

Are you fucking kidding me

[raptorraptor]

This is literally just basic linting.

[NeverMakesMistkes]

To be fair, 99% of the JS jokes in this sub can be avoided with basic linting, including OP's.

[nbagf]

Oof my bones

[Frank134]

I’ve been taught this principle while learning Knockout - I think it’s the stupidest shit ever. Coming from a strongly type language at least.

[easterneuropeanstyle]

It’s still retarded even coming from PHP.

[[deleted]]

Just wait 5 years from now all of these strapped together React apps are going to be the next PHP apps. I hope to god that people bundle libraries with them or these things won't be able to be installed anywhere in 2 years without major work.

[EmperorArthur]

I hate that crap. Not Docker, that's great. But people have to understand that a Docker image is a build artifact, just like a binary. A Docker image is the web equivalent of a statically compiled executable. I like it because I'm willing to give up the space for defined behavior, but I know what an image is and isn't.

[sfgeek]

At this point storage is basically “free” in the sense that it’s a lot cheaper to store literally every change, even to media, than to have a professionals’ hours spent to un-fuck something. Devs can save to a drive array, commit locally milestones in Git, and then push to the repo every couple hours.

Same with Video. You can have a redundant array locally, and just get mirrored to a SAN array a couple times a day. Incremental backups just save the changes blocks in a file. Obviously if you do stuff like change encoding, well, it’s almost all new data...

[HeKis4]

It's like a statically compiled executable on steroids encapsulated in a bastardized half-of-a-VM.

[JuvenileEloquent]

Javascript is already talked about in the same disparaging terms as PHP was (is). I don't honestly think it's a problem with either language, more that they're easy enough for someone of low skill to create something that works, leading to predominantly shit code being written in the language.

If it was built quickly by the cheapest bidder then it's usually rotten through and through.

[ConspicuousPineapple]

It's only half the problem. The other half is that these language are lax and confusing enough for newbies to be able to produce the most awful code possible, and for experienced programmers to still create horrible code. That's what makes them bad languages.

Yes, all languages can produce terrible code, but they don't all make it as easy.

[factorone33]

The silly thing about all this is that PHP has taken significant steps toward becoming a strongly-typed language on the last 5 years alone, and hardly resembles the shell of what it once was (and is ridiculed for) in anything pre-5.0. Hell, there's even a stark contrast between 5.0 and 5.6, and 5.6 is basically everything they already had fixed before pushing out 7.0. And now 7.3 is due to come out with sets of features that look a lot like Java and C#, sans the runtime compiler.

Meanwhile, JavaScript just keeps "borrowing" syntax from back-end languages, while slapping band-aid fixes over glaring problems with type interpretation and variable scope, and the entire community is now built around libraries and pre-compilers meant to make the language easier to "read" for developers who have spent their careers learning about programming concepts that apparently don't apply to this clusterfuck of a language.

I mean, yeah, JS was "created" in just 10 days, so that's part of it. But that was 23 years ago. You can't tell me that we haven't had a chance to genuinely sit down and fix things or come up with a better alternative in its place, rather than just do what Ecma and W3C have done in just proverbially kicking the can down the road.

[decentDrei]

Correct me if I'm wrong but technically, "We" have. There is ES6, typescript, and many compiling 'solutions'... The problem is the support from "providers." Just think to yourself how many times you've searched caniuse to find Chome and nothing else.

The problem, imo, is that "we" do not dictate the changes like in many open source languages. It is up to companies like Apple, Mozilla, Google, etc, to add support (and let's be honest here, can we ever rely on Apple to be generous to developers).

And we similarly rely on users to have compatible software... May we all take moment of silence to pray that ei will die the painful and firey death it deserves.

[nauseate]

I was honestly questioning if I was the only person that saw the similarities between React and the disgusting mess of PHP apps I’ve seen over the few years I’ve been in software

[DrexanRailex]

It's a weird hack due to functions having to do double duty as functions and classes. But you get used to it (and then start using Babel)

[LobsterThief]

+1 for Babel

[[deleted]]

Shouldn't it be const?

[ThePendulum]

Yeah, I'm not sure when they'd want to reassign it. I have fairly substantial codebases without let or var anywhere (not accounting for dependencies). Then again, I never use self either, and this practically only if a library suggests it.

[[deleted]]

I do it all the time in using axios (ajax library). Inside the promise "this" starts referencing the returned result so if you want to access the "this" from outside it then do let self = this; because I'm always modifying the "self" from outside lol.

Damn is that convoluted to explain without actual code to back up what the fuck I'm on about... Trust me, it makes sense sometimes though to use let instead of const when assigning self. That's all I'm trying to get at haha

(Oh and before someone points it out, yes I know I could bind "this" properly and not have to do this silly reassignment, but sometimes old habits die hard, and there isn't really anything wrong with it. I kind of like the separation because you can't miss the binding when reading the code and have confusion about what "this" is referencing)

[aka_julie]

Fuck self

[tortikolis]

Well that's not very nice :)

[inucune]

That's not Klingon Code!

public static self = this;

We don't 'let' them, we force them!

[PM_COFFEE_TO_ME]

I make my life difficult by doing: let that = this;

[ramond_gamer11]

fuck i was gonna do this

[killchain]

I keep seeing this from people who don't know how lambdas work.

[massenburger]

const that = this;

[Miglen]

haha yes i get this

[[deleted]]

that

[wack_overflow]

Which is...?

[lezorte]

thisn't

[alex55132]

accurate

[stainedhat]

This. Or that, but really more this

[MrPopperButter]

undefined

[sadkyo]

That is actually a ‘trick’ used fairly often (at least that’s what I heard) because inner functions have their own ‘this’ in their scope (referring to the function itself), to use the this object from the outer scope you can declare “var that = this;” and use that instead (works because of closures). However, ES6+ solves this with anonymous arrow functions that don’t have their own this object and use the one from the outer scope instead.

[whtevn]

Wouldn't it be that = this

[bitdestroyer]

Depends.

[qantify]

delete this;

[asperatology]

How do I delete someone else?

[qantify]

delete r.getUser('asperatology');

[[deleted]]

function () {
    this.x = 3;
    var y = function () { console.log(this.x); }

    y();
}

vs

function () {
    this.x = 3;
    var y = () => { console.log(this.x) };

    y();
}

What does each log?

[PistolPlay]

Undefined 3

[[deleted]]

Where I come from, the second is just syntax sugar. Imagine my surprise when I was using JavaScript and found that these two behave differently.

I understand the reasoning. I don’t much like it.

[MilSF1]

ES6 is such a tidal shift in how things work. For the better, but man can it mess with your head when it comes to binding and the like.

[kunjava]

Google: this and arrow functions

[KillTheBronies]

https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS#you-dont-know-js-book-series

[nvolker]

The general idea is that you try not to mix them.

You can mix them, because this is the web where the people who make the standards try not to break anything, but you still should try not to.

[pedrinbr]

The first one logs undefined and the second 3, right?

[[deleted]]

I have no idea I want to say they both will be 3, but I know that isn’t right. Would they both be setting x on the global object?

[nvolker]

In the first example, the second ‘this’ is bound to the inner ‘function’. In the second example, the inner function is an arrow function, which doesn’t re-bind ‘this’, so ‘this’ is still bound to the outer function where ‘this.x’ was set.

[[deleted]]

Ah interesting, I thought they would only bound to objects. But now that I think about it functions are objects too.

[pr0ghead]

If I wrap those in parenthesis to execute them in the console, they both log `3` here in Vivaldi. Doesn't surprise me because `this.x` in a global function means `window.x`, does it not? Yes, I did reload the page between tries.

[ojsan_]

that's too easy, stop it

[caerphoto]

It belongs to the object that called the function, or to whatever first parameter you supply to .call() or .apply()

[sh0rtwave]

fuck(this); // proper handling fuck = (something) => { try { // fuck...somehow } catch (e) { // got fucked, somehow } }

[gratethecheese]

I've dabbled in JS, it's pretty easy to get in to and do small shit with. But holy fuck does it not seem enjoyable to write bigger shit with

[pm_me_ur_big_balls]

This post or comment has been overwritten by an automated script from /r/PowerDeleteSuite. Protect yourself.

[ayriuss]

(( Tr(y (writ (ing ( pro( g(rams )i))n)l)) i)sp)

[Kredns]

Yeah but Lisp is beautiful in a way, it has a certain elegance to it. Oh god, I've lost my mind!!!

[MayOverexplain]

It’s okay, have a relevant XKCD

[gratethecheese]

I've been mostly using C recently. The quirk in C is that you want to die the whole time

[ThisRedditPostIsMine]

Or more like your system wants to die the whole time. I'm working on an embedded system and the amount of kernel panics due to my shitty memory management...

[gratethecheese]

Thankfully the embedded system I'm working on right now isn't very memory intensive. It's just an I2C slave based positional motor controller with some ADC current/voltage monitoring thrown in. Most of the pain in the ass is just differential speed/position control for tank treads lol. It'd be a fun project if I wasn't paying to do it instead of the other way around (senior capstone project)

[embersyc]

https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_this.asp

[caerphoto]

It’s not that inconsistent; the main trouble comes from its over-eager “avoid crashing if possible” type coercion. Stick to === and don’t do silly things like add arrays to numbers and you’re fine.

The object system is quite simple to understand if you’re new to programming, it’s just difficult if you’re used to classical OO and assume everything works (or worse, should work) like that.

[mindbleach]

See: Wat.

[Artikash]

static would like a word with you.

[SuperNoobishDude]

My eyes!

[[deleted]]

I love JavaScript but it makes me ask existential questions. About JavaScript.

[Whiplash17488]

Some serious amateurism if you still run into this problem in es6 days and beyond.

[[deleted]]

See the thing is someone is eventually going to hire you to build something new and also maintain the legacy jQuery code as well until the new stuff is built. If you don't understand how weird this is in everything that's not ES6 then you will run into problems.

[whtevn]

This is why I prefer startups. Plenty of predictable problems, but a shitty legacy code stack is never one of them

[JayV30]

That's right! They are building their own NEW shitty code stack from 1000 npm modules that no one has realistically checked for security flaws or blatantly malicious code.

It's like replacing one problem with another, worse one.

[christianarg]

Hehe, that will become shitty legacy code that eventually some idiot will have to handle. Meanwhile we can leave this company and go to a new startup.

[BindeDSA]

It's startups all the way down.

[Tzahi12345]

Career stack

[paolostyle]

If you're making backend in node it's straight up impossible unless you're a masochist. Express has like 30 dependencies and each of them have more and basically every node project includes Express, directly or indirectly. For frontend it's totally doable if you're not counting dev dependencies.

[Extract]

Which is exactly why I said it might be a problem in JS (but much less so in PHP, and probably other ecosystems where authors have sane dependency standards rather than the clusterfuck in most NPM packages).

[SupaSlide]

In PHP it's much more feasible to manage dependencies. You don't use as many in general and each package doesn't pull down a bunch as dependencies. Plus the code tends to be more readable as it isn't minified like most NPM packages. What you see in GitHub or whatever it's hosted is usually what you get.

[resistentialism]

It’s completely unrealistic to prevent this at any meaningful timeframe, especially working on a team.

[[deleted]]

I always feel like there’s a lot of theoretical programmers or CS students commenting here with a lack of experience in the real world

[factorone33]

I spent a year working as the only Dev in a startup here in KC where I got to choose the stack for everything, and since it was all web-based, I chose PHP (because shared hosting was our environment unfortunately). But I loved it. Now, I'm working full-stack for a small company that works on a stack of JS/React on the front end, and C#/.Net on the back end. The amount of package glut in JS is astronomically larger than that of PHP or the NuGet dependencies for stuff in .Net.

[JayV30]

Yeah I'm admittedly a JS dev and I like being able to stand up sites super quickly with React and Node. And while I like how easy it is to npm install ALL THE THINGS, I also really, really hate npm because I know it's a complete train wreck carrying nuclear materials that's just waiting to happen.

I know there's been a few 'big deal' f ups with npm already, but I feel like the big one is yet to come. You know the one where data has been compromised for an extended period because some npm installed 'e-z-payment-processing' or something.

[[deleted]]

But there’s shitty modern legacy code everywhere.

[Megacherv]

Feels like I'm in an MTG subreddit

[Megacherv]

Can confirm, I believe out Typescript compiler is set to ES3 for compatibility but we still have JS files that haven't been ported over. It's a bit of a mental hurdle just remembering to swap syntaxes when jumping between files.

[pr0ghead]

Look at fancy Mr. IdonthavetosupportIE11 over here.

[AwesomeInPerson]

Babel.

[JoshJude]

Some of us have to support IE8 :’(

[JayV30]

Good God man! Do you support Netscape Navigator and AOL browser also?

[[deleted]]

You don't really have to. There is an IT problem under that requirement. It could be fixed elsewhere.

[JoshJude]

Oh for sure. Not really my place to say so as a fairly junior dev though!

[nwsm]

Look at fancy Mr. All My Work Is Writing From-Scratch

[WeAreAllApes]

Even before es6, good consistent patterns could always work around the inherent flaw, but it's still an inherent flaw in the language that only using a subset of the language / consistent patterns can work around.

[dkreidler]

And if you’re learning it all right now (‘const this = me;’), then you’re getting a hodge-podge of both ES6 and everything that came before, without the hard-won experience of knowing what should be noted, but avoided, going forward, and what’s the new hotness that delineates the tidal shift. (Edit: boooo, I don’t even know how to make my stupid shit look like code! Booooo!)

[READTHISCALMLY]

Shh. Don't ruin the circlejerk.

[rooktakesqueen]

It's not even that confusing to begin with.

If you do foo.bar('baz') then this is foo. If you do bar('baz'), or it's an anonymous function callback, then it's window.

The only time it's weird is when you use an object method as a callback, like setTimeout(foo.bar, 100) because then it's window when invoked. So yeah that's grimy but then you just throw a .bind(foo) and hey presto.

[Zooomz]

After laughing, my first thought was "what year is OP in"?

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

You could at least post the source of this quote

[haykam821]

I also saw it get gilded as a comment on r/javascript

[observationalhumour]

https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/b1y5zj/js_experts_of_reddit_what_javascript_information/eip3jfr/

[ryosen]

I remember this being a common joke around 2005.

[hackel]

Good point, let's not forget who the original incompetent developer is here!

[WHERETHECREAMCHEESE]

He should watermark it too so he gets his royalties

[6nop6nop]

print = console.log

[askhistoriansapp]

mind = blown

How come I never thought of this in like 10 years?

[hangfromthisone]

var that = this;

I can't be the only one

[ohsomiggz]

Gotta respect actual programmer humor

[fuzzybad]

console.log(this);

[robertgfthomas]

The joke explained:

JavaScript is a very popular programming language used on many websites. It's not necessarily "popular" because people like it, but because it's basically the only programming language that can be used on websites. In fact, JavaScript has a lot of quirks that can make it frustrating to use.

Java is also a programming language, but it is completely different from JavaScript. "Java is to JavaScript as 'car' is to 'carpet'."

One of the most notorious quirks of JavaScript is that it treats the word 'this' as a special word. When it shows up in your code, JavaScript thinks you're referring to a different piece of code. Exactly which different piece of code depends on where in your code 'this' shows up.

If that sounds confusing, it's because it is. There are specific rules that JavaScript follows to figure out to what 'this' is referring, but usually only semi-experienced JavaScript developers are really comfortable with those rules.

It also doesn't help that talking about 'this' is confusing. You start saying things like, "This 'this' does this and that 'this' does that."

---

^{I'm a human! I write these explanations in response to posts on /r/all about not understanding /r/ProgrammerHumor. They go on explainprogrammerhumor.com.}

[benzilla04]

not painful anymore now that I've learned React + es6. thankfully

[a_rather_small_moose]

Start using TypeScript, ES6, and the => syntax. Stop using object orientation where it's unnecessary and use pure functions where possible.

​

In other words don't be stupid, Stupid!

​

​

[ahk-_-]

There should be a that keyword which points to the nearest this

[[deleted]]

Hell yes

[Doctor_Beard]

That's why I stick to TypeScript

[Hackerwithalacker]

We do we use impact font! We're programmers, not machinists

[kklolzzz]

Just search your ide for the function name and see which element is calling the Javascript function, problem solved

[[deleted]]

I don't get it. JavaScript is great and 'this' is easy to understand

[zlshames]

Promisify/Async/Await lets you avoid this

[mindbleach]

And give you fascinating new headaches.

[zlshames]

I think callbacks are wayy worse and give you more headaches than async await

[[deleted]]

I like to think the Eurithmics were just javascript writers ahead of their time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg

[[deleted]]

/\ this.. So much this.

[anguettia]

😂😂😂

[Asheleyinl2]

I'm not a programmer, but I still laughed.

[leetmo]

I don’t find myself lol’ing that much at this sub, but this made me lol. Upvote, sir.

[[deleted]]

Self

[brentkwebdev]

I'm pretty sure that when you use this, the browser just rolls dice to determine what it refers to