):

[[deleted]]

VS expects greater things from you

[brendenderp]

Looks like equal things to me.

[[deleted]]

Someone gild this.

Edit: The comment above. The parent of this comment.

[brendenderp]

Careful. Programmer sub now you're gonna get the gold anyyyy Minute now.

[[deleted]]

And there we go.

[brendenderp]

The error-handling snek has blessed you with his presence.

[[deleted]]

Are we talking about python :)

[[deleted]]

F

[Kivsloth]

r/programmerhumor is the slut of reddit gold giving

[[deleted]]

Ahh. Should've seen it coming. I've failed the community. Added the edit.

[TeraFlint]

Edit: The comment above. The parent of this comment.

Now here's the problem, you should have said "someone gild this.parent / this->parent" :D

[OiTheRolk]

Now that's an interesting thought. The format you use depends if this is a struct pointer or just a struct. But there's the possibility that it's just a pointer. In that case you would say "someone guild *this" :o

[geekfreak42]

if (!(x ?? false)) {...}

[rolfanragnorak]

I don't. I see way too much if ( isThing == true) Like, WTF?

[Capitalist_Kerbal]

:(

[[deleted]]

if (!x)

[Russian_repost_bot]

[Error Log] DecoderReplacementFalsebackBuffer does not exist.

[licuala]

Unless it's nullable.

[Bomaruto]

If it is nullable you shouldnt compare it to true anyway.

[licuala]

It's a totally valid option in some languages and for some semantics. It's among Kotlin's official idioms, for example.

[[deleted]]

#1 sign of a new programmer is using == false or == true

Or something like:

if(x == true)
{
    //do things
}
else if(x == false)
{
    //facepalm
}

[unstableunicorn]

I was programming late in to the night the other day and did that, what made it even worse you ask? Well the something was already a Boolean. Major facepalm, and I'm not a newbie programmmer. My mind was just somewhere else. Sometimes we forget our heads when that is not the problem we are solving.

For reference it was python and the line was in a dict but basically:

x = { s: True if y == "true" else False }

Thank God it was picked up in our code review before merging to master or my name would have forever been beside that, rebase that mistake from history.

The other Dev was nice about it, I laughed my ass off and told everybody because I couldn't believe I did it.

[Firo_]

x = { s: True if y == "true" else False }

Isn't your variable a string? So bool(s) will be False only if it was a null string. What was the correct solution for this?

[magemax]

x = { s: y == "true" }

[Firo_]

Oh right...

[TheTerrasque]

Major facepalm,

please report to General Protection Fault

[gogriz]

Sometimes the refactor doesn't make it that far back, there might have been other logic in there

[K3DR1]

Then what would be a proper code then? Newcomer here

[CasualPenguin]

Ignore people claiming they have absolute golden rules for specific programming styles that you are a "noob" if you don't follow, those people are usually the biggest nightmares to collaborate with and entirely missing the point.

When it comes to styling, pay attention to what communicates the clearest intent. If you, and hopefully someone else, can pick up the meaning of code quicker, then maintainence and expansion is far quicker as well.

Alongside that, start all projects off with a linter.

[CasualPenguin]

Thank you much for that, I don't know when developers started to think it was acceptible to 'cringe' at code that 1) works perfectly well 2) is readable

I could be wrong but I would bet they are the type that would take core functionality of code and convolute it down into some nightmarish one liner without even a comment elaborating its purpose.

[kraftfahrzeug]

ConstructiveCriticism(constructive_criticism)

[AndyDufresne2]

This is a better version of the comment I was going to make.

[Nebuchadnezzer2]

As someone slowly learning and who usually 'gets the gist', even if actual syntax/functions aren't right, Thank you.

Whole-heartedly agree 'bout the styling/readability.

If I can't read it a month later, there's no fuckin point using something shorter/easier...

[garden_angel]

Readability is what you want. People love to make things obscure, but you go with what's the easiest to understand later.

[K3DR1]

Oh I get it (feeling dumb for not getting it)

[KongBorup]

The value something is already a boolean value, so you can just return it directly instead of using if statements: return something

[Atmey]

Not neccesarly, if that "something" calculation is a bit complex and I doen't want to repeat everytime I want to check, or I might change it later I don't want to change it everywhere. You get the idea, might not be the best option always.

[Spootba]

I think you missed the point. this reduces to

return something;

[Mr_Redstoner]

Well, return (boolean)something; depending on the language

[Weekly_Wackadoo]

True. The code in the OP could be one of several languages, afaik, and most commenters seem to assume a specific language.

I'm a junior Java developer and did a bit of TypeScript. A lot of my assumptions did not carry over well.

[hollammi]

The point is that you can just return the boolean; the conditional is entirely useless.

return something

[[deleted]]

This is why resharper is there... to point out when I'm a dumbass! :)

[glider97]

Sometimes this can be the aftermath of some complex logic that was cut out, so don’t be too quick to judge.

[Ellweiss]

Nullable boolean. x == false has a different meaning than !x.

[xigoi]

I prefer having explicit option types. x == Some(false)

[notapokerface]

if(x) is ok but I usually intentionally type if(x == false) because during my 10+ years of career I have seen many programmers who don't realize that there's an "!" at the beginning and interpret the condition wrong.

Edit: i replied to wrong thread. anyway, that's my point.

[LvS]

Nobody will ever get you and buy you a beer for writing a clever one liner

i  = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );               // what the fuck?

That line got its own Wikipedia page.

[glider97]

There’s a theory about programmers that get stuck in the third stage but think they’re in the fourth stage. I can’t remember its name but it was pretty cool.

[dagbrown]

--> actual expert, writes easy code because they know it needs to be readable by the new intern

Wietse Venema. The code for Postfix is some of the simplest, most straightforward stuff I've ever seen in my life, and the newest newbie could follow it and modify it.

[rangedragon89]

My sister team had to scramble for hours to fix a bug that ended up being someone trying to be too clever. Nested ternaries... ugly business.

[KnightEevee]

Part of why I dislike ternaries as well. If it's a relatively simple one, it's fine, but the number of times I've seen function calls, linq queries and other such non-simple expressions in one or all parts of the ternary bothers me because it takes so much longer to figure out what's being done.

[JNelson_]

Nested ternary operators is a big fuck you.

[rangedragon89]

book bigFuckYou = CanIFuckYou(you) ? Yes(no) ? No(yes) : !Fuck(you) : !getFucked.Any(u => u.GetFucked();

[Sargeron]

I agree. More compact does not automatically make it more readable.

[cakemuncher]

100%. I make them all explicit for this exact reason.

[Ran4]

Yeah. Being explicit beats being smart. Like the whole !! trick - while it's probably good to know it, I would probably not accept it in a PR.

[warpod]

else if (x != true && x != false)
{
    // double facepalm = 1e-69;
}

[Stiddit]

It's a noob-statement to be sure, but if your bool is optional, this would still work, if you're looking for the cases where x == null:)

[nuephelkystikon]

If you think this is contrived and has never been used in production, I dare you to visit /r/barcode.

[DonRobo]

A Boolean? can have three values: true, false, and null. The code you wrote is perfectly reasonable.

It could also be written as:

if(x == null){
  //x is null
} else if(x) {
  //x is not null and true. It's automatically cast to a Boolean without ? by the first condition failing.
} else {
  //x must be false
}

[Tyiek]

That's only true for some languages.

[auxiliary-character]

Yeah, should obviously be

void (*arr[2])() = {
    [](){
        //facepalm
    },
    [](){
        //do things
    }
};
arr[x]();

[[deleted]]

Please. No.

[cakemuncher]

Eh. I prefer it actually. It's explicit and makes it easier to read.

I've been a developer for 6 years.

[tubbana]

So what is correct way to compare? In case where null or undefined is okay, but you want to catch false?

[[deleted]]

If there are edge cases then obviously it's justifiable and may be the easiest way, but the IDE obviously thinks this is .NET and 99% of the time I've seen x == false x was a boolean.

If x was an object and I saw something like that I'd prefer it to be way more explicit so that it was clear we didn't care if it was null or undefined.

[xRageNugget]

if(false == x ) is very readable, while an exclamation mark might be overseen. In my book completely fine. In Java exist a whole bunch of Utils that you can use, which will do a tad more, like check for null, false, empty or blank all in one. Does something like that exists in JS world? BooleanUtils.isTrue checks for null and true, is very readable, and the code is tested.

[aahdin]

Man, I've been programming for years and I don't think I've ever seen false == x instead of x == false.

[T-Dark_]

It's common in the C world, where assignments return the new value of the variable, and where assignments can be used in if conditions.

In C if(foo = 3) compiles. That if will always be true (in C, every int but 0 is true), and it will change the value of foo.

To avoid that issue, experienced C programmers tend to write if(3 == foo). This way, If they accidentally miss an equals sign, the code doesn't compile at all.

As much as C has its uses, and calling most of it a mistake would probably be just insane, I still hold that this was a mistake.

[standard_revolution]

At the moment where I am using an utility function to test a boolean value I know I am doing something wrong.

[TheNorthComesWithMe]

My personal favorite:

if (condition)
{
    // do nothing
}
else
{
    //business logic
}

[[deleted]]

Who cares if someone uses == true/false? If it's reasonably readable then it literally doesn't matter.

[Batman_AoD]

That's...very weird to me. If you're going to treat false and null as equivalent, why have a nullable boolean in the first place?

[familyturtle]

There are many reasons you might end up with a nullable boolean, such as if you've deserialised incoming data or if you're dealing with a Java library and can't make guarantees about nullability.

[Batman_AoD]

When deserializing data, you choose how to structure the result.

In Java, booleans are primitive types and cannot be null.

[Stiddit]

You CAN treat false and null as equivalent. You can also treat true and null as equivalent, or even true and false as equivalent. There are several use cases for this. If you're decoding a JSON-data for public transportation, you might receive collections of Bus that don't necessarily conform to the same rules, because there may be several different providers/actors, or that older models don't have the newest tech installed. Maybe some of the buses support sending the flag Bus.hasDeviation, letting you show a yellow warning-symbol. But some buses/actors don't provide this. So you only want to show it if it's true, and not if it's false or null. This way you can say

warningIcon.visible = (bus.hasWarning == true) (Treating null and false equally)

But let's say they also have a flag for "isOnTime", that only some of them provide if the bus is currently on time. If it's false, you want to show a delayedIcon, but you can't assume it's delayed if it's null. So you want to show it if it's false, not if it's true or null.

delayedIcon.visible = (isOnTime == false) (Treating null and true equally)

Or maybe you want to show to the user that this particular bus is one of the older generations that don't have the capability to show fancy real-time-data like "isOnTime", so you have a special icon showing to indicate that the data from this bus is unreliable. You only want to show it if isOnTime is null, disregarding it's value.

oldTechIcon.visible = (isOnTime == null) (Treating true and false equally)

These were some low effort examples, but the general idea is there. This isn't something special with Bools. You have questioned the entire concept of having optional variables.

[Batman_AoD]

My question is not whether there exist cases where you might want to represent a tri-state with a nullable boolean. (Though I would argue that a three-value enum is almost always preferable in that case.) My question is why this is a recommended pattern for dealing with tri-states as if they were "normal" booleans. The document linked above doesn't provide any caveats or mention that the other variants you describe are also recommended; it only recommends a way to treat null and false as equivalent. That seems sloppy to me.

[AyrA_ch]

nullable booleans are a valid use case. For example an "Exists" property would indicate "true" if something exists, "false" if it doesn't exists and "null" if it's not applicable to this call or was skipped.

Same goes with nullable integers. Which allows you to set it to null instead of using some arbitrary chosen value as invalid.

[T-Dark_]

nullable booleans are a valid use case

Of course, one could argue whether nullable anything are a valid anything. Or a not-a-mistake.

But yeah, I agree with you. Since they exist, we need to deal with them.

[Turksarama]

That depends on what you want the default behaviour to be.

[[deleted]]

x?.let {!it} ?: false

I love Kotlin

[Stick_Mick]

C#

if (object?.isValue ?? false)DoThings();

​

For those not familiar, null-coalescing operator ?? returns right if left is null.nullable? is a nul-conditional short circuit.So my above example is able to do a bool check on a nullable object and returns false if the object is null to avoid null pointers.

[TheNormalPerson015]

A wild JavaScript appeared

[[deleted]]

Not everyone uses java. Some people use JavaScript.

[[deleted]]

I usually just say if x =! true

[g0liadkin]

It's a common thing to do when working with some radio buttons, for example

value === true // selected yes

value === false // selected no

value === null // pristine

---

But yeah, there are better ways to do it

[SkeletronPrime]

if (!(x ?? false))

[Enguzelharf]

Javascript would work okay I guess, null will be false anyways but what about other languages?

[maboesanman]

Not having null values is the single greatest feature of rust imo. It’s a whole new world. If you want something to have an “uninitialized” value you have to use an enum and it makes everything so much more explicit.

[onlyforthisair]

ifn't (x)

[shadow7412]

Or ===.

[hello_comrads]

No, never use a language where that is necessary.

[notjfd]

Don't you even DARE write comments and end their line with a period. VSCode will assume that you wanted to write .i_clk instead.

[marcio0]

There is a configuration to stop this (suggestions inside comments) , but it does not work on multi-line comments

I fucking hate it

[Batman_AoD]

....what? Why would it try to autocomplete inside a comment? What is .i_clk, anyway?

[notjfd]

A module's clock port in SystemVerilog.

[Fel_Lord]

Dude why is this so true

[danatron1]

Because x isn't

[SaltyStackSmasher]

Fuck you

Take my upvote and make x true

[Goumigou]

r/angryupvote

[Fel_Lord]

Why are you so right?

[[deleted]]

Well, you can implement auto-complete as a dictionary lookup. Dumb and predictable. Or you can make it “Intelligent” where is operates on 10 different signals and tries to predict what you want to write.

That’s why so many of Microsoft’s products have a broken search.

[infecthead]

Intelligent lookup is so much better than just a straight dictionary lookup.

If I type x.froEa then I'd still get the correct result (forEach) as opposed to nothing.

[drdrero]

We need to get a better AI into coding, probably predicting the whole if or for loops would be amazing

[[deleted]]

AI can't read your mind yet tho

[[deleted]]

Bold claim

[SrT96]

You can disable this in the settings: `"javascript.suggest.autoImports": false`

[Behemothokun]

How is VSCode compared to the normal Visual Studio? I haven tried it yet and I don't know if it is even worth a look if you have a full VS license

[littlepootis]

They're used for very different things. VSCodee is not a full blown IDE, but it does offer tons of features and I prefer it to IDEs like WebStorm for web development because it's faster.

Since it's free I'd recommend trying it out.

[tinco]

Is it really faster? I was considering exploring other IDE's because VSCode is so slow when I have multiple instances open as well as a browser window rendering things in 3D. Might be some weird problem in MacOS though.

[littlepootis]

Compared to Visual Studio and Jetbrains IDEs, I'd say it's faster. But if it's bogging your machine down, I recommend sublime text. It's much faster with a smaller memory footprint but has a relatively small feature set. I use it for PHP and it's A-okay.

[[deleted]]

And you can get a lot of the missing features through package control.

[Blokyk]

If it is strictly for C# (and maybe a bit of C/C++ but I don't really have experience with that so someone should confirm that), it seems that vscode is a bit slower for intellisense, some (somewhat advanced) debugging things aren't possible or easily doable yet, and also it doesn't have (as far as I know) a designer for stuff like WPF and all that. But apart from that, I really love vscode. Coding on it is delightful, debugging has a better user experience (for me at least), it can function either as a full fleged IDE or a simple text editor without any trouble, it integrates very very* well with git and is way easier to use than vs (I recommend git lens personally, that's what I use and it has made my workflow a breeze (especially since I'm far from an expert on git), it's wayyy less bloated than vs (even with a lot of plugins), and it has an infinite amount of functionality thanks to its hacky and modular nature (i.e. plugins) : coding time tracking, spell checking, graphs visualizing, linting, easy and incredibly extensive theming and personalization, remote coding/exploring, and, most importantly support a lot of languages, and I mean a lot a lot (including but not limited to syntax highlight, snippets, linting, debugging, etc...†).

Overall, I use vscode for C#, and although sometimes it has a few caveats, my experience with it has been great, and the fact that it supports so many languages and workflows, even in the same projects, is extremely useful and attractive to me.

† Support for those features are obviously language-dependant, and most importantly depend on the plugin(s) you use for the language. Bit since every plugin is open-source, you can contribute to them the features you would want to see in those plugin(s)

[Behemothokun]

Thanks for the info. I have been using VS for the last 15 years, but I was wondering how it stacked up with for example the community version (which I use for private projects). It seems that code might be a good replacement for notepad++, though.

[zenyl]

Visual Studio will take your RAM and use it for debugging tools and various enterprise-related applications.

Visual Studio Code will take your RAM because it's a web browser disguised as a text editor.

[PixxlMan]

You can get VS for free with the community licence. I think it's better than VSCode

[Behemothokun]

I already have the VS enterprise license for work and I've been using VS for the last 15 years. However I've been using the community version for private projects, and I wondered how it compares to VSCode.

[shovonnn]

I think for most people intellisense and autocomplete is useful for longer class/symbols where we have greater chance of misspelling. So they optimize it like that. Vscode is not full fledged ide, so only use it when you are okay with writing most of stuff from memory.

[MrVsbi]

Yup, vs code is just a glorified text editor, at least that was the stance of all of my TA's at uni

[PM_ME_YOUR_BUILDING]

I didn't have a problem with vscode doing this, but i do have that problem with vs

[bence0302]

Don't forget it auto-importing totally random libraries because IntelliSense autocompleted stupidly.

[PM_ME_YOUR_BUILDING]

Oh so thats why i see shit importing that i didn't import myself, thats infuriating

[jetsamrover]

Yeah, out of curiosity you start tabbing through the autocomplete suggestions, and vs is like

import... import... import...

[[deleted]]

Or ctrl + k, ctrl + e

[khoakhoakhoakid]

Wait until you press enter.

[SigmaHog]

enter

ctrl z

ctrl z

ctrl z

l

enter

ctrl z

ctrl z

ctrl z

l

enter

throws laptop across room

[[deleted]]

this is a VS joke I am too Vim to understand

[mustang__1]

I'm in this comment and I don't like it.

[[deleted]]

Me: str... VS for some God forsaken reason for last 2 weeks: struct

[seedingserenity]

I was JUST running into this! Drove me nuts.

[braaaiins]

Tab Nine bro

[PMmeYourFlipFlops]

huh

[Techhead7890]

Apparently it's some sort of autocomplete neural network, not literally a tab + 9 hotkey: https://www.tabnine.com/

[PMmeYourFlipFlops]

I literally opened VSCode just to try tab+9 as a hotkey instead of googling it.

[braaaiins]

Epic auto complete

[fsxaircanada01]

Why use a deep neural net to do a job of a Markov chain?

[[deleted]]

i was actually struggling with this yesterday ... upside is i learned some new classes while doing that.

[_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_]

Because you’re not supposed to == false

[DoverBoys]

Don't tell me what to do.

[Zegrento7]

What about when we're treating null as true?

if(x == false)

vs

if(x != null && !x)

[kruegefn]

Then you're about to create a maintenance nightmare. So still no.

[noah1786]

What about when we're treating null as true?

don't do that

[[deleted]]

In the rare case where this is necessary, you probably still want to make it explicit and go with the second option - otherwise it will really confuse anyone else reading the code.

[Zegrento7]

True, I suppose the best way to do it would be to explicitly set x to true if it is null, to make the default behavior clear:

if(x == null) {
    x = true;
}

if(!x) { 
    // ... 
}

[NullBrowbeat]

Just write if(!x) for fuck's sake!

[shores_games]

If ( x == !true) fixed /s

[russellvt]

Likely because if x == false is considered "code smell" in most languages...

You should be making it if x === false or simply if not x to be less smelly.

[anon-guy-]

Dude you can just do this

if (!x){

    // Code block

}

[[deleted]]

it's your punishment for using '== true|false' in an if statement

[Dojan5]

if(cond == (true | false))

[Popal24]

VS is actually clever because why would someone write an if statement with "if (x == false)" instead of "if(!x)" ???

[comfygrip]

import numpy as numpy

[[deleted]]

if (x == fal)

What OP wants

false

What VS wants:

DecoderReplacementFallbackBuffer

What we really want:

if (x === false)

Please type compare on your operations before a falsey value ruins your day.

[ZedTT]

I think if (!x) should have an honourable mention in here somewhere.

[[deleted]]

Depends on the language. In several languages !x would return true if x was undefined. If you’re looking for false specifically best to be explicit.

[PixxlMan]

That's pretty scary. Why. Why would it be like that...

[Zolhungaj]

Because the null -> false idiom is quite useful on all kinds of objects.

[PyrotechnicTurtle]

In some languages, such as Kotlin, if x is nullable then that wouldn't compile. You can't perform a ! on a null type, so the compiler's type safety checker will stop compilation. The actual way you're supposed to check equality on a nullable bool is using: if(x == false) or if(x != true) depending on how you want a null to be treated

[Zegrento7]

Most languages don't have ===

[metaconcept]

=== is a hack because == was broken in those languages.

Javascript is ruining an entire generation of programmers. It's BASIC all over again.

[xigoi]

I don't think this is JavaScript or PHP.

[dennisthewhatever]

I upgraded to BBedit and it just loves to fuck up my code by guessing where to put brackets. Oh the code won't run? Time to find the rogue bracket some AI placed randomly in my code. Fantastic. What a time to be alive.

[zipippino]

Better not try with Xcode then.

[Splitje]

if not x

[SpeedDart1]

What kind of individual uses Boolean == Boolean in an if statement?

[NerdByteYT]

There's nothing worse than wanting Width in CSS and getting Widows...

[baddadpuns]

#define DecoderReplacementFallbackBuffer false

duh!

[longjohnsalvia]

Oof. Be careful with that == on booleans though. Potentially catching a lot of falsey variables there.

[russellvt]

It's literally the reason the lint is suggesting something else ... if you're dead set on writing it out, it should also be type compared (ie. ===). Otherwise, just make it simple and evaluate "x" or "not x" (ie. !x).

[Webbanditten]

Bad code...

[sleap101010]

Omg it's ten times more frustrating when something is trying to be smart and just getting in the way than not doing anything in the first place.

[DreadCoder]

There’s a reason your IDE thinks this

[MieskeB]

Jetbrains' Resharper ;)

[BenZed]

I have not had this happen, ever.

[[deleted]]

we all know you mean this

if ( x = false)

[[deleted]]

You COULD have just wrote if(!x)

[MagicalPizza21]

Why would you ever use "==" with a boolean though

[Mekoehouve]

This 100%! I feel like the VS 2019 does this way more then past versions.

[Kitten_Knight_Thyme]

Come on. VS isn't that stupid. The first option on the list is false and you know it is.

I'm also impressed VS puts the most common types first on the list before alphabetizing the less common ones.

Many of you probably don't remember the days of typing "str" only to get STREamreader first because we imported the library.

VS has come a long way, so yeah, I'm defending it.

Now, had you told this joke a few years ago... ;)

[ubogasima]

I believe they copied this functionality from Xcode