Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #39969

Re: Understanding &&

Show key headers only | View raw

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes:

> On 2021-04-17, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes:
>>> It's not a rule of mine, it seems to be a rule of almost everyone.
>>
>> The trouble is that a non-trivial number of languages have this form,
>> and I've seen it used quite widely.  But maybe most of the uses don't
>> rise to your standard of abuse.  I've not come across the rule, but then
>> it's a long time since I worked anywhere that had rules about
>> programming.
>
> I don't mean as a rule that's written down, I mean as in 99% of
> programmers do not write code that looks like this. I don't consciously
> have it as a "rule" either except inasmuch as it is a consequence of
> "readability matters".

I read too much into some very strong words.

>>> No, of course not. I think it's "abuse" because it's written to look
>>> like an expression but it isn't, really - we don't care about its
>>> result, we only care about its side-effects.
>>
>> Ah, right.  So the abuse (as you see it) is not exactly the control flow
>> but using it to control side-effects.
>>
>> I've seen (and, dare I say, written) code that uses the result.  I
>> wonder if that absolves the programmer from the charge of abuse:
>>
>>   return (data = parse_input(file_name))
>>       && (result = transform(data))
>>       && write_file(file_name);
>
> Unlike the original, that's bad enough that I would outright reject it
> in a code review.

Interesting view.  Thanks.

>>> Maybe it is there. Fundamentally the issue is that if you're going to
>>> sacrifice readability, you'd better be getting something good in return. 
>>> In the case we're talking about some readability has been sacrificed and
>>> we've gained absolutely nothing in return - the code isn't shorter, or
>>> neater, and it doesn't run faster.
>>
>> I don't have any problem with the readability, in general.  Obviously
>> you can make unreadable examples, but I not a fan of rules than ban
>> something because of the potential for abuse.
>
> I haven't suggested anything like that, in fact I explicitly said right
> there that what matters is the code quality overall.

Your view is much more moderate than I thought it was from some of the
words used, but I did get that you were making balanced judgement.  When
I said I don't have a problem with the readability I was suggesting that
nothing is last so there is no need for any balancing gain, but I think
you see readability through the eyes of the least skilled reader who
might have to look at the code.  I find that hard.  How low should one
go...

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Understanding && Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2021-04-16 14:30 +1000
  Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-16 11:00 +0100
  Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-16 11:17 +0000
    Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-16 16:09 +0100
      Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-16 15:26 +0000
        Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-16 21:09 +0100
          Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-16 21:06 +0000
            Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 02:01 +0100
              Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-17 08:33 +0100
              Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-17 12:06 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-17 14:13 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 15:50 +0100
              Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-17 15:21 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 23:46 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-17 23:46 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 23:59 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-19 13:56 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-19 23:08 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-19 22:52 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-20 01:23 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-20 01:08 +0000
              Re: Understanding && Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-04-18 00:49 +0200
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 17:26 +0100
          Re: Understanding && Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-04-17 17:05 +0200
            Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 23:04 +0100
              Re: Understanding && Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-04-18 00:48 +0200
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 17:13 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-04-19 21:58 +0200
            Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-18 18:20 +0100
          Re: Understanding && Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-04-18 00:40 +0200
            Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 00:14 +0100
              Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-18 00:01 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 17:44 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-18 17:51 +0000
              Re: Understanding && Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-04-19 13:41 +0200
                Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-19 15:02 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-20 17:40 +0100
                Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-20 18:19 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-21 10:11 +0100
                Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-21 19:46 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-22 13:48 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-19 21:28 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-19 21:56 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-19 23:13 +0100

csiph-web