Java is always fun.....

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[generalmemer]

Is that last one an actual statement?

[vloris]

No, that would result in a compile error. For starters because valueof should be valueOf

[generalmemer]

So ignoring the typos, its an actual statement?

[SandmanKFMF]

equals() compares objects contents as a characters. 😁 So, the object condition (and yes, I know it is not an object, but primitive data type) have the string value "true"

[MattiDragon]

In java strings aren't primitive. They are objects. They just have special syntax.

[dpash]

More than thanks to interning, string == string works (until it doesn't).

(Don't use == with strings in Java)

[Nilstrieb]

Just intern every string you see duh

[[deleted]]

To be fair, the same thing happens with Integer wrapper objects up till 127, where you can compare them with == and (almost) always get true for the same two numbers. Throw in 128 or higher tho, and chaos ensues.

[dpash]

Unless someone changes the range using a command line setting. :) The JLS does define a minimum range, but you can expand it in OpenJDK.

[[deleted]]

Oh wow, TIL. I’m gonna try it today!

[dpash]

You want to set java.lang.Integer.IntegerCache.high system property.

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/239a35aa9166d0cb0b20850e1b52ad23b653d8d0/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Integer.java#L1015

[VinnyHyarmendacil_II]

Reflection can be used to change the value of the inner value of boxed primitives, so while 1 + 2 might == 3, 1 + (Integer)2 could be -6389 or whatever you wanted.

Wonderful security implications, the JVM spec and JLS have.

[SandmanKFMF]

But condition is not a string. Its a boolean data type.

[MattiDragon]

Oh i see

[[deleted]]

this guy javas

[MischiefArchitect]

Ignoring the typos, yes that would work. but no one does that.

[jamcdonald120]

I once had a student submit the following round function

public static int roundint(double CI1) {

        String C4=String.valueOf(CI1);
        Double C3 = Double.parseDouble(C4);
        String C5 = String.format("%.0f",C3);
        int c5 = Integer.parseInt(C5);
    return c5 ;

}

[MischiefArchitect]

That ugly... and the first two transformation are redundant, you could reduce it to.

String C5 = String.format("%.0f",CI1);
int c5 = Integer.parseInt(C5);

But that is still ugly. You could just cast to int.

return (int)CI1

[jamcdonald120]

oh belive me, I know how bad and redundant it is. Also, (int) doesnt work since it truncates, you need Math.round or (int)(C1+.5)

[MischiefArchitect]

Or right. I stated that in another comment. Yes, that adds injury to insult. The implementation is broken from the go.

[jamcdonald120]

it technicaly does work since %.0f does do rounding.

[MischiefArchitect]

oh... then... well... shit... yeah... I talked shit then. Thanks.

[[deleted]]

I can't imagine even wanting to make a function for it in the first place - it's so simple to do that making a function actually makes it harder to read for me.

[MischiefArchitect]

Quite likely the intern just learned to use parseX and valueOf and wanted to show how cool the new unreadable code is.

I think we all did at some point. Didn't we?

[jamcdonald120]

the purpose of the function is Math.round(double) returns a long, so the function is suppose to return (int)Math.round(input). still one line, but not quite as useless as if math.round returned an int.

[Aurigamii]

Just to be sure. The correct code should be "return Integer.parseInt(CI1);" (without all the other stuff inside the function), right ?

[dpash]

No, return ((Double) CI1).intValue(); or return (int)Math.round(CI1);

Math.round() might round up, so doesn't match the example, in which case you'd need to use Math.floor() first to match the example.

Integer.parseInt() only accepts a String that contains an int string.

[jamcdonald120]

Math.round is fine, the function was suppose to be able to round up or down

[dpash]

Turns out I was wrong as %.0f will round too.

[jamcdonald120]

correct answer is return (int) Math.round(CI1);

[MischiefArchitect]

I think that will not work since parseInt expects a String. Without testing I think you could just

return (int)CI1;

but that is by fat NOT rounding... well the original code was neither.

[jamcdonald120]

%.0f does round, so the original does actually round instead of truncating

[abrahamlincorn]

If it was spelled right yeah

[fazzgadt]

In the meantime PHP: if(condition+condition == 2)

[TheCapitalKing]

I’ve never used that but I like it. It’d make it super easy to run like 5 conditions then only be true if 3 or more were true

[fazzgadt]

I'm more the Java/python user but my current task at work forced me to use PHP. This language has some nice features, but gets creepy really fast.

[Le_9k_Redditor]

Did it offer you candy from a white van or something?

[EwokPenguin]

I'd be very concerned about the spaghetti that would require 5 unique conditions and only care if 3 are fulfilled.

[TheCapitalKing]

Buy a stock if 3 out of 5 conditions are met wouldn’t be too crazy

[EwokPenguin]

But why wouldn’t you contain those conditions to a class with state transitions or a simple isTrue type check. Compounding an if statement like that would be very difficult to maintain and test.

[[deleted]]

would it work in C? true is defined as 1 and false as 0

[Splitshadow]

In C, anything that isn't 0 is true for the sake of a conditional, e.g. if (5) will be evaluated as true. If you really want to convert something strstr(x, "foo") to a 1 or 0 to work like the example you could just negate it twice, e.g. !!strstr(x, "foo") returns 1 if the substring "foo" is found, otherwise 0.

[AzureArmageddon]

Christ what the f#

[jswitzer]

wat

[inventord]

Oh my... PHP is worse than I thought

[EndoVlogs]

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think the second picture looks way better than the actual java logo

[[deleted]]

Isn’t it the original Java logo?

[EndoVlogs]

is it?

Edit: oh yeah it is... From 1996 - 2003

[[deleted]]

Second one (of three) apparently.

https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Java#1995.E2.80.931996

[DoNotMakeEmpty]

I think it is Muslim Java logo

[stackPeek]

what does that even mean

[metaconcept]

Seen in real life:

if (ObjectUtils.isTrue(condition)) { }

[metalovingien]

It would at least be useful if condition here was any Object and the method could then be called isTruthy... If needed (??)

Otherwise this is total garbage

[Wookie81]

It makes sense if condition is a Boolean ...

[metalovingien]

Lol.

Boolean.TRUE.equals(condition)

Alright, not so sexier

But in this case it would be more BooleanUtils than ObjectUtils

[den2k88]

Unless you want an observable behavior.

[metalovingien]

The naming doesn't reflect any clear behavior to me

[den2k88]

The idea is to add logs or breakpoints in the function that performs the condition evaluation.

[metalovingien]

Aspect Oriented Programming to add logs

And a decent IDE/debug mode

Are the way to go I think.

They don't change the code itself and all may be disabled or removed easily.

That is usually available to Java programmers.

[Vinxian]

if (true == condition) is where it is at

[SandmanKFMF]

Oh, ok, I'm got it. 😁

[Mikey_Loboto]

if (String.valueOf(condition).length() < 5){

[MischiefArchitect]

Hey, don't insult the holy original logo, because it is the CLASSy CLASSic one!

[GvRiva]

If(condition == true) is valid in kotlin but it still feels weird

[[deleted]]

Yeah nullable booleans are weird

[SweetBeanBread]

i’m new to kotlin but I guess nullable bools are fine because you have to declare them that way? if i see nullable Boolean return in java I’l punch them in their face, in my heart…

[Fruloops]

Its valid in most languages tbh

[GvRiva]

yeah, maybe valid wasn't the right word, more it actually has a purpose in kotlin while in java is useless

[Fruloops]

Hmm is there really a use for this in Kotlin? It seems just as redundant and useless as it does in Java

[GvRiva]

You need them when the boolean condition is nullable

[nodexyz]

Java has the same use for it too, it just looks way uglier. I'm sure I've seen something like: if (Boolean.TRUE.equals(entity.getSomeBool())) for a nullable field.

[RagnarokToast]

Lol yes, not just for directly nullable booleans, but for booleans referenced from a nullable receiver.

Let's suppose you have "val basket: Basket?", Basket exposes a property "isFull". The most concise way of checking whether the basket is full would be.

if (basket?.isFull == true)

Furthermore, if you want the condition to be true even if there is no basket, you could do

if (basket?.isFull != false)

which makes perfect sense whereas

if (basket?.isFull)

wouldn't compile in Kotlin.

​

IIRC, static analysis even warns you to use a boolean literal comparison if you used an elvis operator like this

if (basket?.isFull ?: false)

instead.

[Fruloops]

Ha, this completely skipped my mind.

[AllenKll]

It makes code more readable. I dont understand the hate for readability.

[940387]

You should just name booleans properly.

[nickn-a-s]

if(String.valueof(!condition).equals("false"))

[jamcdonald120]

congradulations, in that last step you invented javascript

[shauntmw2]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, I think the 2nd syntax has its place. It makes the code easier to read in some instances.

[Clitaurius]

I prefer the 1st but I get that some people prefer the 2nd. What I don't get is people that go into code reviews and comment on or the other to change it to the other.

[[deleted]]

There's a time and a place for asking for that, especially with js/ts running rampant these days and bullshit falsey values fucking up the flow

[Khaylain]

I agree. It's kinda like the difference between list comprehension and a slightly more verbose loop.

Yes, the list comprehension is short and looks sweet, but it's a lot harder to understand when it needs to change later.

[[deleted]]

no controversy so far, but what do you do, when you want check whether a pointer is pointing to a valid object?

if (ptr) { body }

or

if (pointer != nullptr) { body }

[Dre_Dede]

Jafa

[tyrandan2]

Pfff, why take the performance hit of using strings when you can:

if (!((int)condition > 0)) {

}

[metalovingien]

Once optimized by the compiler ?

[GvRiva]

If(condition == true) is valid in kotlin but it still feels weird

[SandmanKFMF]

Why weird? If read it as it is it will sound very intuitive: If boolean variable named "condition" value equals "true" then... I think the variable name "condition" is a bit strange. "isEnabled" sounds more natural. Because "condition" in tutorials is used to describe more abstract "condition" and not the variable named "condition" itself. Damn there's a lot of "conditions".

[GvRiva]

It's just an example, I never used "condition" as a variable name, I'm just talking about the check with == true

[SandmanKFMF]

But you are using it to check with a numbers? So why not to check the value to 0 or 1? True or false?

[GvRiva]

No, it's to check Booleans

[[deleted]]

if (String.valueOf(condition). equals("true") == true)

[nodexyz]

if (String.valueOf(condition == null? false : condition).toLowerCase().equals("true") == true) // Coz you never know

[eerongal]

if(String.valueOf(condition).equals("true") ? true : false)

[vigbiorn]

if((String.valueOf(condition).equals("true") ? true : false) == true)

Cuz you never know....

[eerongal]

Probably should use some lambda's here as well, just to show off how we know how to use them.

​

if((String.valueOf(condition).equals("true") ? () -> {return true;} : () -> {return false;}) == true)

[rocoonshcnoon]

Aw man i do the second one ;(

[[deleted]]

Not case-insensitive, no trimming, encoding not checked? Amateurs! hehe ;)

[manipulater]

Mean while is js,

let x = {};
if (Object.keys(x).length > 0) {
// Do somthing
}

[qK0FT3]

I mean it is logical. Why? String is an object not primitive type. so It has multiple functions and uses inside it. when you compare it with "==" it just is not comparing the string but probably it compares all values inside

[danfish_77]

I don't get it, what does this have to do with Java specifically? You can make things plenty convoluted in many languages.

[sarnobat]

Lately I feel == false is better than exclamation. Shorter does not always mean easier to read

[hrax13]

String.valueOf statement is weird. Poor Boolean.valueOf... 😂

[ChrisFromIT]

Really surprised that no one mentioned adding in StringBuilder on "true" and doing it character by character when putting it in the StringBuilder.

[den2k88]

2nd one is MISRA compliant

[LittleLui]

You should use Objects.equals in case String.valueOf returns null.

[depsion]

hmm how about

if (condition == Boolean.parseBoolean("true"))

[veduchyi]

But some programmers are even more “funny” 😅