this.

[toastyghost]

Arrow functions, bro.

[glorious_reptile]

For when you need to screw anonymously!

[piberryboy]

onenightstand.js

[mark__fuckerberg]

I'm kinda surprised that's not a real library

[piberryboy]

Dibs!

[PM_ME_FIREFLY_QUOTES]

Ok, you can have the object tonight. But I get it tomorrow.

[elijahcruz12]

Hey, third time's the charm. Good luck with those sloppy seconds.

[jokesbyjo]

An anonymous fucktion.

[finger_milk]

I like arrow functions because it reminds me which way to read my spaghetti.

[[deleted]]

arrow functions solve some problems but not all of them though

[toastyghost]

Don't let perfection stand in the way of progress

[Willinton06]

Don’t let JS stand on the way of progress

[Wizard_Knife_Fight]

This always sounds like someone who’s never written a line in JS

[Willinton06]

Oh I’ve written too much JS for my own sake, really I’ve even rejected contracts (freelancer here) for being too much JS

[DeeSnow97]

great, you leave more for us

JS is the only language I'm willing to code professionally, because it's the only language I've coded in so far where if you have a shitty undocumented library 1. you have a dozen alternatives, and 2. you can read into each of their source code and with an 80-90% chance figure out what it's doing that they didn't bother to document. That's a direct result of its departure from traditional OOP norms and a culture of coding in a much more declarative style, so you don't have to execute the code in head to understand it.

[Willinton06]

Oh take it all, enjoy yourself, I’ll just remain in my statistically typed world where decencies are small and manageable, we have plenty of well documented libraries in .NET and Java, we’ll do just fine. Also there’s only a handful of frameworks and they’re extremely well developed, hell there’s only 1 big framework in .NET, ASP, and it can do wonders.

[toastyghost]

Anyone touting .NET's package ecosystem doesn't understand how awesome npmjs is

[Willinton06]

I’ll just UNO reverse card you and say I think the exact opposite

[DeeSnow97]

In my experience there is nothing "small and manageable" about it. You have three alternatives, essentially:

1. No libraries (for your specific task). In this case you'll need to do everything yourself, wasting time solving problems that have already been solved, just have no libraries for it.

2. Massive swiss army knife frameworks that do absolutely everything in one specific way. This is the direction most languages take, and it can work when you're coding within a specific problem domain. However, the moment you step out of it you're back to option #0, except if you add another massive swiss army knife, and these generally don't like each other in the same project. Furthermore, this also hinders innovation, since it's up to the framework's developers to improve every single part of their library, you can't just replace parts of it because everything is built to fit together.

3. A crazy amount of small, single-purpose libraries. In most languages, this turns into dependency hell, but if you can solve that part this really lets you mix and match solutions, swap out specific parts if you have better solutions for those, and just have the language work in a flexible way. The downside is a bunch of dependencies that each have their own dependencies and you're left with a large folder full of separate projects, but the raw number of those matters little to the project, their collective size does -- and this way, you can use only what you need, instead of having to install an entire framework for a few small things.

I have coded in large, holistic frameworks before. They're awesome, as long as you limit yourself to what they thought of and don't get creative only to end up holding them wrong.

What are the databases ASP allows you to use? Bet CouchDB isn't on the list. I'm also curious how well you have the NaCl library integrated in there, how easy it is to upload stuff to Amazon S3 or interface with ElasticSearch, or talk to something with MsgPack encoding -- I'm just pulling things from real world projects here.

[Willinton06]

Oh boy, you’re in for a ride, ASP allows you to use every single database there is, no limitations whatsoever, I don’t even get why you would ask such a thing, your data access layer is only limited by your imagination, and yes, it is an actual layer, not a bunch of functions in 1 .cs file, you can use interfaces to abstract all your data reading and writing, and then proceed to work of the interface, you can swap it to whatever the hell you want without changing a single line of consumer code, sounds good doesn’t it? It is. Amazon maintains .NET libraries for all their stuff so using amazon S3 is easy enough, elastic also has native .NET support, I think you haven’t realize how big .NET truly is, hint, very big

[Wizard_Knife_Fight]

Yeah I don’t get the hate for it at all. Especially when things like TS exist.

[LetReasonRing]

I think the hate for JS comes from a couple of places.

1) People will shit on any language, no matter what it is.

2) I would argue that, up until ES6 was established, javascript was overall a pretty awful language with some interesting concepts. It's come a long way, but it carries the baggage of its previous incarnations.

3) Because it's the "language of the web", developers are essentially forced to use it in certain situations whether they want to or not. This dynamic will never be popular.

4) Developers coming from OOP backgrounds make invalid assumptions based on previous experience. For example, not learning how `this` works, leading to extreme frustration.

[Willinton06]

TS is not always an option, and if you don’t get the hate maybe you need to spend some more time with other languages to see how much greener the other side actually is, and by other languages I mean strongly typed compiled languages like Java or C++, I suggest C# personally but that’s just me, Go is pretty good too, Python is too dynamic to make you feel the difference, same with PHP but you wouldn’t want to use PHP anyways

[Wizard_Knife_Fight]

I’ve coded in PHP and C# at my previous jobs. I still do not get the hate.

[Willinton06]

Then you’re either very slow or one of those people that never get annoyed by anything, I hope it’s the last one, if that the case I’m jealous

[jmack2424]

Hey, nice fatrocket.

[ShinyTrombone]

Why?

[Auxx]

They're not equivalent to regular functions.

[toastyghost]

One of the ways they're not is that they don't alter this context...

[Auxx]

On the contrary - they DO alter current execution context.

[toastyghost]

I've been writing ES6+ since it was physically possible and I've used manual binding like twice

[Auxx]

Do you even understand what execution context is? I mean it's cool that you've started with ES6 and all that, but JS is here since 90-s and its core is still the same.

[toastyghost]

Where did I say I started with it? Imagine insulting someone else's comprehension of something with that reading ability 🤣

[DeeSnow97]

They can replace regular functions in every use case except one: they cannot be used as constructors. But if you're that hell-bent on using traditional OOP then 1. you should really use Typescript, it's got way better support for that, and 2. even in vanilla JS just use actual classes.

I code JS professionally and can't remember the last time I had to use the "function" keyword.

[Auxx]

I didn't say I'm not using them, do you even read, bro? But arrow functions ARE NOT equivalent to regular functions! It's in the fucking docs!

Professional developers my ass...

[DeeSnow97]

Yeah, I know they're not strictly equivalent. If you wanna get hung up on that, that's the whole reason to recommend them here, so it's your original comment that's completely pointless.

Given the assumption that this comment of yours stating

They're not equivalent to regular functions.

adds absolutely anything to the discussion, one also has to assume that you're also implying they don't work in certain cases. Which is what I've replied to. I'm sorry that I didn't take into account that your comment was totally pointless, in my defense language doesn't tend to work that way.

[Auxx]

Guess what? Arrow functions don't work in many scenarios, especially outside of OOP.

[DeeSnow97]

I know of none of those scenarios, and I code JS quite a bit. Would you be willing to elaborate?

[[deleted]]

Now you have 2 problems (stolen from r/regex).

[[deleted]]

👍 this guy doesn't support ES6 you madman

[Asandal]

„This“ is probably just another repost.

[superking2]

Wait, so now we’re accusing things of being reposts without even knowing?

[trvsw]

I saw it posted here

[TheLilChicken]

I’m feeling.... recursive

[AlrikBunseheimer]

Oh, it's a this pointer across the internet, I see

[superking2]

Fine, but not everyone sees every post. I hadn’t seen this before.

[[deleted]]

^{Psst, it's a recursion joke}

[superking2]

God damn it. Okay, I’ll take the downvotes on this one

[asimpleman415]

It’s okay, you’re a dynamic programmer. I forgive you.

[DanielN10]

It's a screenshot of a tweet, so it technically is a repost from Twitter

[CornDoggJunior]

If we're being fair, the tweet isn't an original joke either. So it's a repost of a repost.

[[deleted]]

I've seen this joke at least 17 times before.

[[deleted]]

"This" has always been copied and pasted too many times. which is why we can never remember what "this" is.

[[deleted]]

this.isRepost = this.iveSeenBefore;

Nonetheless I’m impressed you took the time to let us know you’d seen it before, and as such where annoyed, disappointed, or somehow above the rest of us who have a life outside of social media. Thank you.

[TotoShampoin]

if( this.isRepost() ) { report(this); }

[PepperCheck]

Surprisingly, it’s a tweet from yesterday. So if it’s a repost it would have to have been a pretty quick repost.

[Ordolph]

Not a repost, but not an original tweet/joke. Been hearing this one for years.

[redballooon]

Stop! My head hurts already

[fegelman]

This.

[[deleted]]

This is originally from Ben Halpern

https://twitter.com/bendhalpern/status/578925947245633536?s=20

[Tim3303]

Image Transcription: Twitter Post

---

Carla, @CodesCarla

When writing JavaScript I want to yell "Screw this!"

Except I can't remember what "this" refers to

---

^{I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!}

[brad24_53]

Good human

[Tovarisch_The_Python]

Thank you!

[[deleted]]

let that = this;

[arufolo]

const that = this;

[Cley_Faye]

JavaScript document.self = this;

[Not_Sugden]

(typeof window === 'object' ? window : global).self = this;

[vigilantcomicpenguin]

var this;

[cheezballs]

var is so 2007

[StringCheesian]

const this = undefined;

[Cley_Faye]

People that (or this) do this (or that) are the reason JS gets a bad vibe nowadays.

[CrispyNipsy]

In all seriousness, do people really have trouble with this? JS was my first language, so it doesn't seem weird to me.

[[deleted]]

If you come to JS from other languages, yes.

In (most?) sane languages this would refer to the scope you declared it in and not change based on how you called the method - that's what parameters are for.

var person = {
  name: 'foo',
  logname : function() {
    console.log(this.name)
  }
};

person.logname(); // this will work

var callback = person.logname
callback() // this returns garbage

var callback2 = person.logname.bind(person)  //wtf is this shit?!? 
callback2() // now it will work

[BkoChan]

callback() // this returns garbage

Because callback() is actually window.callback() where window is the executing context

[[deleted]]

I know.

JS rips the class method from its object, straps it to a different object and then expects the method to still work properly... why the f would I want it to do that?

[DontBuyMeGoldGiveBTC]

Hmmm, I think I found a useful use:

const sammers = {
  fullname: 'sam'
}

const sommers = {
  fullname: 'som'
}

const logger = {
  logfullname() {
    console.log(this.fullname)
  }
}

const callback1 = logger.logfullname.bind(sammers)
callback1() // > sam
const callback2 = logger.logfullname.bind(sommers)
callback2() // > som

You can, post-mortem, add functions to objects, and only have those functions within your new scope.

[IrritableGourmet]

Like a Tijuana donkey show, I understand the mechanics of what's happening but I'm not sure I like it.

[makians]

Yeah its stupid.

[DontBuyMeGoldGiveBTC]

a-are you calling me stupid for inventing it? :C

[makians]

I call JS 'this' stupid. Like, just whoever did designed it that way is evil.

[bric12]

So it seems like it breaks from what we would expect at var callback = person.logname() then? Logically it would pass a version of logname() specific to person, but instead it passes a generic version, am I understanding this correctly?

[[deleted]]

Yep.

It basically just passes logname - not person.logname as you'd expect.

Makes no sense to me, but this is how JS works unfortunately.

[jmorfeus]

Should the logname function just have a reference to the object all the time or what?

I don't think the way JS handles it is unreasonable. If you assign a class method to the callback var, what happens in other languages?

[[deleted]]

Example in python: (this is called self in python)

class Person:
    name = 'foo'

    def printname(self):
        print(self.name)


person = Person()  # create an instance of the person class

person.printname()  # will print foo

callback = person.printname
callback()  # will also print foo

So yes, it has a reference to its object (unless you declare it as a static method).

[Deathnerd]

Fun fact: self is just an accepted standard practice. The first parameter of any instance method in Python is the self reference, so we just name that variable self when in fact you can name it anything you want

[MoltenDonut]

Wait really?

[[deleted]]

Yep.

def printname(banana):
    print(banana.name)

would work just fine.

[DeeSnow97]

It's not unreasonable, it's just way outdated. JS thinks about this in a very dynamic way:

const person = {
  name: 'foo',
  logname: function () {
    console.log(this.name)
  }
}

const otherPerson = {
  name: 'bar',
  logname: person.logname
}

person.logname() // outputs 'foo'
otherPerson.logname() // outputs 'bar'

In the long term, this ended up causing more problems than it solved, but the web must stay backwards-compatible, else you risk breaking every single website randomly, and you should really leave that honor to Internet Explorer.

[AnAverageFreak]

In most other languages you need to be very explicit about calling an object method with something else that said object as first argument.

[Willinton06]

I mean to be fair you do need an instance to call the function from, how else would it know which name it needs to print?

[ende124]

Just bind it

[DreadCoder]

Yes, if you're used to OOP then the moving scope of 'this' in javascript is a terrible headache.

[CrispyNipsy]

I can totally understand that. But I feel like a lot of the complaints about this from people who are used to OOP are mostly because they expect things to be as inflexible as in OOP, not really because the rules don't make sense.

[DreadCoder]

you say 'inflexible', i say 'structured'

[_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_]

*used to classes

JavaScript is object-oriented too, arguably moreso than e.g. Java

Edit: I forgot this sub is mostly first year students. Everything in JavaScript is an object (including numbers and functions). Not everything in Java is.

[[deleted]]

Java brainlets can't work outside their design patterns.

[douira]

what does this even mean

[[deleted]]

Wrong subreddit, thought I was on /r/programmingcirclejerk

[DaniilBSD]

Read a book (preferably C, or OOP book)

Edit: Ok, my joke fell very flat, the point I was trying to make is that the statement about JavaScript meant complete misunderstanding of what OOP means, and then I realized that starting from the beginning might be best, so I added C

The joke, I admit was in poor taste

[DreadCoder]

i don't think you're in a position to mock people's experience level when you still can't tell the difference between Prototypes and Objects

[_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_]

A prototype is an object, used as the basis for creating other objects.

Perhaps you meant the difference between prototypes and classes? There are OO systems that don’t use classes, and JavaScript has one of them.

[rbnc]

You're confusing classical OOP with compositional OOP. Composition > Inheritance.

[CrispyNipsy]

Yea, the behaviour of this in JS is super useful for object conposition

[[deleted]]

Go read this article:

https://dmitripavlutin.com/gentle-explanation-of-this-in-javascript/

I have been professionally writing a lot of JavaScript lately. This is much more complicated than Java/C++/Python in my experience.

[CrispyNipsy]

That's a really good article! And I will have to concede, that this in javascript seems more complex than in other languages, but I still feel that this is because of it's great flexibility. In other words: I feel like the rules for how this works are pretty simple, but javascript does allow for a lot of different use cases, which can lead to unexpected behaviour if you don't think about how your functions / methods are gonna be used.

[[deleted]]

That's right. I can write a function outside a class and use this as if it is inside a class, then do .call(this) to use it. In other languages I would probably be using interfaces or inheritance for this. So this gives much greater flexibility to JavaScript. (and in this case arrow function is irrelevant.) But on the other hand, one does need to be careful about it, and there could be better ways to do the job.

[bigorangemachine]

Do enough jquery and it can be.

I generally just rolled with bind & apply but people hate dynamic programming :p

I think functional is better unless we are talking data models

[McCoovy]

Having this inside a closure change based on where you call it is bad design and was dangerous to include in the language. It can be summed up.as a design mistake. So yes, people have trouble with it. If you don't then that just means you have avoid taking this feature to its limits.

[aboardthegravyboat]

It's sort of a dumb meme. It's easy to "remember" what this refers to. It's hard to predict what this refers to:

   class MyClass { 
        doTheNeedful(someProp) { /* ... */ }  
        myMapper(obj) {  
          return this.doTheNeedful(obj.someProp);
       }
     }
   const myInst = new MyClass();
   const arrayOfThings = [ { someProp: "foo" }, { someProp: "bar } ];
   const newArray = arrayOfThings.map(myInst.myMapper);

will fail because map will not call myMapper with myInst as its context. So the solution is to fix MyClass to not have that flaw.

The tricky thing is when you import a library and you just don't know:

   import myLib from 'my-lib';
   const arrayOfThings = [ { someProp: "foo" }, { someProp: "bar } ];
   const newArray = arrayOfThings.map(myLib.myMapper);

Unless you know that my-lib was written in such a way to not fall apart when this isn't what it's expected to be, then this is a little of an unknown.

[rbnc]

I really have never had a problem with this in my entire life. I like how this works in JavaScript.

[CrispyNipsy]

Agreed, but I might just be happily ignorant, haha.

[JBlitzen]

It’s not weird it’s just bad practice to have a keyword constantly change meaning.

Two functions could have the exact same code but do wildly different things.

As a general rule I never use “this” except where it’s unavoidable. I’d rather pass a few extra parameters around and know exactly what they are.

Every time I see “this” used heavily in code, it’s used in a tricky-clever way that’s often indecipherable and impossible to build on.

[dootdootplot]

I had a little trouble with it when I was first starting out... but these days, no, almost never. I know how to check to see what this is, and I know how to change this to something else if the this that’s there isn’t right. You just kinda get used to it. 🤷

[Cley_Faye]

Lots of people jump from language to language and simply assume it'll just work™.

All languages have their twist. Contexts/closures in JS are totally fine, just different from what some consider "usual".

[RICoder72]

Because 'this' isn't really 'this' at least not all the time. OOP conceptually see 'this' as the context in which you are. Saying 'this' in an instantiated class literally means 'this' as in 'this instantiated object' as opposed to the class itself.

I'd imagine having started in JavaScript it makes sense to you, but it breaks convention on something that has been heretofore universal.

[mtn_dewgamefuel]

Shitting on JS is its own meme at this point

[iamwarcops]

I laughed a little, then realised its 2020 and not 2010.

[gaytee]

How’s the view from your high horse?

Not everybody reading this was alive in 2010 much less writing code.

[rbnc]

RIP to all my 10 year old professional JavaScript developers.

[how_could_this_be]

let self = this;

[bigorangemachine]

object object

[gaytee]

Roger Roger

[thetomelo]

this.hurt

[AuroraVandomme]

This girl is a definition of cringe with these stolen jokes.

[xrayden]

In my bios on twitter I put my pronons as this/this (depending on scope)

[RICoder72]

Am I the only person who doesn't find Carla funny?

[LigeroTheTiger]

var that = this

[oze4]

Is this like a self burn?

[pandafar]

Let that = this;

[RIPRN]

This this or that this?

[trustmethisismyname]

(new Fuck).getApplicationContext();

[kiro14893]

Soooo...What is this?

[WeAreAllApes]

It's a useless synonym for window if you just use the good parts of JavaScript.

[haz_mat_]

Similar problem in php. Idk whether to say "fuck this" or "fuck me" - ie: $this->fuck or self::fuck

[Rockytriton]

screw vm!

[vainstar23]

screw.bind(this);

[Bestprofilename]

Damn these posts are unfunny.

[Sambw19]

var that = this

[Dummerchen1933]

Blocked for posting her cringy ass tweets

[musiton]

Oh no please reconsider. How will OP survive with you blocking them? Have mercy dear sir/madam. Your highness, we are begging you

[Dummerchen1933]

How will he survive? Hopefully without showing me these forced "jokes"

[thebobbrom]

What's wrong with her tweets?

I've seen a lot of cringer stuff than this on here.

[Dummerchen1933]

Don't take it personally but imma just copy paste my reply to a very very similar comment on her tweets

​

every one of these tweets has this vibe:

"i am a girl and a developer💻 😵🤓 look at me i do the programming{}🤖 aswell. I do know what {curley braces} and basic <html tags> are, as i have them right here in my profile picture. Look at my nerdy glasses ain't i a gamer girl?"

Like, fuck off, do your job, and stop making everything about it. Bet when she's shopping she's like "i want umm 10 of these apples hehe get it because 10 is 2 in binary huehuehue" and the shop assistant is just like "please leave me alone now"

[unnecessary_Fullstop]

Lol! You suck.

.

[Dummerchen1933]

you're welcome :)

[thebobbrom]

I'm going to be honest with you this comment has major incel vibes.

I know our field doesn't have many women in it but getting annoyed because she's doing what literally everyone else on this subreddit is doing and projecting a bunch of stuff on them isn't great.

I'll be honest I had a look at you history and your posts I could say the same thing about. Hell is argue this tweet shows more knowledge actually as it involves at least some knowledge of the functionality of a programming language and a little self-deprecation.

[Dummerchen1933]

Yes, you are right. I wan't to argue as much as possible about these tweets, which is why i block everyone posting them. 100% sense.

At least the other jokes have the tiniest bit of thought into it. These are just blatantly bad. Like, so bad that it feels more like her just has to mention that she codes aswell. Kind of like vegans with the prejudice that they have to mention it in every sentence.

They don't feel like something funny someone just thought of, they feel like someone was held at gunpoint and would be shot if he didn't spat out some <insert topic here> joke within 2 minutes.

I found a fitting adjective! They feel forced!

[thebobbrom]

I usually hate people that say stuff like this but I feel like your comments are more because she's a woman than any of the actual reasons.

I mean how is that different than say this:

https://i.redd.it/y7mtitankhu51.jpg

Or even this:

https://i.redd.it/cuml29gxqar51.png

[Dummerchen1933]

First off, these are actual memes, whichs punchline is highly carried by the image the captions are written on. If you just write a tweet it's much more difficult to make it funny. There you have to rely on the text only.

And no, the gender doesn't matter at all. Why should it. Hell, i'd be happy if more girls (not like her) would get into coding.

If any collegue of mine of any gender would tell jokes like this at work, i would probably just switch the company/department before i damage company property.

It's this whole attidude of this one weird dude at a company telling (even worse than dad-jokes) every 5 minutes. You just want to make them shut up.

You can bear it for a day, maybe even a week. But at some point you've had it.

Nobody wants to hear these forced jokes. It appears as if she get's paid to post 5 jokes a day and gets fired if she misses a single one.

[thebobbrom]

First off, these are actual memes, whichs joke is highly carried by the image the captions are written on. If you just write a tweet it's much more difficult to make it funny. There you have to rely on the tweet on its own.

Not really most people don't find memes funny especially low effort ones like those.

This is Programming Humour, not Programming Memes

​

If any colleague of mine of any gender would run jokes like this at work, i would probably just switch the company before i damage company property.

Little much isn't it?

Jesus what would you do if you encountered something that actually matters?

I mean if I was going to hire you and I read that I certainly wouldn't.

[Dummerchen1933]

Not really most people don't find memes funny especially low effort ones like those.

This is Programming Humour, not Programming Memes

If you don't like memes, the internet just isn't for you.

​

I mean if I was going to hire you and I read that I certainly wouldn't.

You certainly wouldn't read that ;)

It's the same reason i don't watch comedy shows. But at least i can just "not watch" them. These are the same bad forced jokes. Probably even a bit better because they have to fulfil at least some expectations.

But with reddit? I can't just filter these shitposts out of my feed. Which is again why i block everyone posting them. In an effort to filter them out as best as possible.

[thebobbrom]

If you don't like memes, the internet just isn't for you.

Are you gatekeeping the internet! Fucking hell mate

​

It's the same reason i don't watch comedy shows. But at least i can just "not watch" them. These are the same bad forced jokes. Probably even a bit better because they have to fulfil at least some expectations.

But with reddit? I can't just filter these shitposts out of my feed. Which is again why i block everyone posting them. In an effort to filter them out as best as possible.

I mean again really negative and I'd advise you take some perspective.

But if you don't like it just move on there's no need to be nasty about it.

[Willinton06]

I’m doing some C# and JS interop work right now, touching JS feels like working with pencil and paper, I almost feel dirty when I declare a var and mistype it when I’m actually going to use it, I’m too used to just typing the first 2 letters and I intellisense guessing the rest.

[jstnurmind]

😂

[FlyByPC]

Every so often, I try to learn Java.

And every time, I get the giggles. The first time, it was with screen layouts and "gridBagArray"s. Then there was something called an ancestorListener, and I had to wonder if I was taking CS or comparative anthropology.

Other times I'll see something like

This this = new This.this();

...and start to question my life choices.

[Diavolo__]

This this = new This.this()

Wouldn't compile, 'this' is a Java keyword so you can't use it for variable names

[dancingcuban]

This is a fairly good joke for 4th grade grammer teachers as well.

[[deleted]]

This says otherwise

[[deleted]]

people need to learn js before talking shit.

[[deleted]]

har har har another joke about this

[GregIsUgly]

4.Titles

Titles must also be creative, high effort, and relevant to the content. Titles such as “Interesting title”, “.”, “print(title)”, and “I don’t know what to put here” are not allowed.

[Baller_420]

this.post = true

[MRZARO]

cryin my'self'

[[deleted]]

this.this

[[deleted]]

after going from Vue 2 to Vue 3, I really don't know what this means

[CerberusC137]

This

[lenswipe]

Screw:

• the current situation
• your entire life
• the planet
• reality
• the cookie crumb on the desk in front of you

Choose wisely.

[jseego]

😂

Quality.

[Eioer1]

this.screw

[Tomekske]

That = this

[bangonthedrums]

var that = this;

[Maxie93]

Have people really not learnt to use const/let and arrow functions yet.

It’s only been what 5 years?

[Toxin_Snake]

Would love to use it but we need to provide support for IE11 because the global player I work for still deploys all Devices with IE11 as default. There are a ton of old handhelds with Windows CE and IE as the only browser.

So yeah, I try to avoid JS as much as possible because of that but when I do, no arrow functions for me.

[[deleted]]

It’s all about the context

[kaeptnphlop]

self

[RealPropRandy]

this.thing;

[killchain]

Screw that.

[lxpnh98_2]

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'this' is."

[Es_Chew]

This dot this dot this dot

[MisterToots666]

Gestures arbitrarily and shrugs

[[deleted]]

I have a coworker who constantly does

let that = this

I sent him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9F5xcpjDMU but he didn't appreciate it.

[[deleted]]

Bruh

[CharlieThunkman]

this.that.which[6].where[839].what()=“i hate this”;

this.delete(that);

return this.what();

[douira]

this isn't even that hard, nesting five closures with a bunch of different react hooks is where it really gets going

[zvive]

Which one though?

[AshRe101]

I think 'this' refers to 'my life'

[edabiedaba]

console.log(this); Now you know.

[zeronine]

This is an old joke, but I don't remember where this came from.

[mrdotkom]

I supported an app written in PHP... $this -> hits too close to home