How many times have you seen articles saying "Do not do that", "This is wrong" or "These tips will make you a pro developer" etc. 😋 I don't know ab...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Igor Snitkin on January 01, 2021
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I like that part where you say "if you don't know why it works, then presume it doesn't". Great write up waiting for the follow up post.
Yeah, it is indeed a piece of great advice. Usually, I too, don't believe what is written until I'd myself seen or done practically.
Great read. Point 1 is also my favourite, “+” over “Number()” just makes no sense as a choice to me. The latter is ridiculously clear, the former is just ridiculous.
Granted, the spread operator being used in the returned array like this means you'll be generating copies upon copies upon copies, but you asked for an arity-agnostic refactor, not a performant one 😜
Note that your ordering is a bit weird. You could do this (swap
bandain thereduce):Every single time I use
reduce, I forget how whichever language I'm using it in organizes either its own arguments, or the arguments given to its lambda/block. 🤦♂️Ruby:
Elixir:
And now, (thank you,) Javascript:
Haha, yeah. In Scala you have
foldLeftandfoldRight, wherefoldLefthas it as the first argument andfoldRightas the second argument.This instantiates n+1 new arrays (where n is the number of arrays), when you could have just used a for loop to instantiate 1 new array.
Did you read the comment of @josh to which I replied?
Syntax bite # 5 for '12px 15px' can be also rewritten as:
margin.split(/px/g).map(Number)ormargin.split('px').map(Number).Produces a result of
[12,15,0]. Still usable in case you only need to do basic calculations (add, subtract).You're still assuming all of the values have a unit and that unit is pixels.
This doesn't work for zero.
Great, thanks for pointing that out. Aside from that, it is an alternative for the specific example using integer casting.
You missed the whole point of this article. Which that you should not be writing code that way in the first place. Nor should you be suggesting this buggy code to anybody else.
absolutely love this and agree 100%
this would just require a post on its own.
it summarize the right positive investigative attitude to good coding practice and learning in general.
A worthy article to read. Thanks!
My two cents:
Find some tricks very helpfull, specially points 4 & 5 🖒. But in point one I prefer using + operator to make conversions to number, is faster to type and is you hardly manage big ints in your app so the unary + operator works perfect. Also I like to use !! to convert to boolean type. Just a matter of personal taste 😁. Very good article 🖒. I'll be waiting gor the 2nd part.
Seems like using TypeScript solves most of these
What's not love about
variable + ''
1+ +a
!!thing
if (!value)
My favourite part was "solution: use a function". How great is functional programming!
Great abstraction with the "bites", a great article to read :)
Do people really do things like exploit bitwise operators as an alternative to rounding? In 2021? (I get to say that today!)
Not as an alternative to rounding, which is just wrong. But it's an extremely easy and fast way to cast your value to int. If you're doing fast graphics stuff, bitwise operations can be really useful.
If you're in the sort of situation where that optimisation is important, then you're probably keenly aware of what you're doing. I'd never recommend this to anyone who wasn't already an expert.
Great post ! Really enjoyed fifth part. Especially to keep "truey" values I used to filter with identity :
arr.filter(item -> item)But never liked it 😅
Geat article, would like more of this.
I rarely use these tips because they are difficult to understand and remember. Thank you for sharing. Great post
Great post! Cheers 💜
Great Article. I even learned new tricks :-)
Bring on the next 5...
dang
stuffed : )
Awesome read! Awesome tips!! Waiting for the second part! Keep up the good work! :D
Man the round stuff was neat! thanks for sharing!
Yep... JavaScript, fun as it is, is also full of these little things that can trip even the most experienced programmers up. Great read, thanks for sharing!