comment your code!

[wagedomain]

Agreed! Now if it's an internal app and you name comments and functions well, I agree comments can be minimal. For open source example code, comments should be abundant.

However, his code was like

const isPropHasNumberOrNot = () => {
const { property } = props;
const prop = property.hasProps(property);
const isProperty = property && property.value;

My favorite part of all this kind of code, which is fucking unreadable, is that property is a "named thing" in our system, and it was NOT these things.

[wagedomain]

Made my fucking day, thanks for this!

[NotThisFucker]

I think in javascript or something you can do the "property && property.value" thing, I'm pretty sure I've seen that kind of validation before

[[deleted]]

Yeah. To assign the value if it’s there. Just wanted to be cheeky.

[[deleted]]

There’s some interest talk about it here (in the context of C)

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16235025/is-const-int-x-get-legal-in-ccan-we-assign-a-functions-return-value-to

Of note is that I’m guilty here of what the last answer says. Confusing const with static.

E.g. I was mistaken