It reminds me a bit of the following line of JavaScript, that was making the round a couple of years ago, and which manages to showcase a lot of neat JS with very little code: (source)
Back to the original topic, I wrote my response from the perspective of 'should this be used?', which isn't so much a matter of interestingness as it is one of maintainability. That's not the same as saying it's 'bad', but in any setting where you're not the only contributing developer, code generally has to do better than simply not being bad.
(of course I'm ignoring the already mentioned String.prototype.includes() in all this)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
It's indeed interesting, no doubt about that :).
It reminds me a bit of the following line of JavaScript, that was making the round a couple of years ago, and which manages to showcase a lot of neat JS with very little code: (source)
Back to the original topic, I wrote my response from the perspective of 'should this be used?', which isn't so much a matter of interestingness as it is one of maintainability. That's not the same as saying it's 'bad', but in any setting where you're not the only contributing developer, code generally has to do better than simply not being bad.
(of course I'm ignoring the already mentioned
String.prototype.includes()in all this)