Actually, leaving out the starting value is fine as long as your array is not empty. When you do that, it will use the first element as the starting value. I think in general it is better to be explicit and provide one though.
Nice tips for any of those contests to do things in the few number of lines, but I'm with David Hunt, this is almost a must set of error lint rules. In enterprise apps, never sacrifice readability for fewer lines of code without a very, very good reason.
If you don't like his comments, I might say why did the world need another "10 javascript..." repeat article?
"You remind me of a friend that has been waiting for 2 years to get some experience in order to give advice to beginners."
Your friend is right. When I see advice like the ones in the article, I usually say "I hope your doctor and your lawyer are better at their job than this."
I've handled over a 100 front-end interviews for my employers and code like that would seriously hurt candidates chances.
It's pretty obvious that these tricks do not make your JavaScript more readable, they're not supposed to help with readability.
The purpose is to show the reader that things in JavaScript can also work this way.
I'm sure you're an expert in the bleeding edge technology that your employer is using and you're really good at those interviews, but it seems you just missed the point of this article.
"of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal"
" capable of being put to use or account"
"The purpose is to show the reader that things in JavaScript can also work this way." - even you yourself describe this precisely as theoretical. Practical is "here is how this should be done".
Look, I would not be commenting here, if I haven't seen over and over again junior devs reading such articles and rushing to use tricks from them everywhere. The best course of action for you would be to remove half of the tricks you've written, since only harm can come out of them. The question is - are you willing to admit you were wrong or is your ego more important to you than your readers?
Eh, I hate to be a jerk, but this is full of really poor practices. To be honest, I stopped after 2 or 3 because they're teaching bad lessons.
Examples:
argumentsshould be deprecated in favor of rest parameters.0in this case as the second argument to reduce.Please, beginners reading through this, don't do most of these things.
Actually, leaving out the starting value is fine as long as your array is not empty. When you do that, it will use the first element as the starting value. I think in general it is better to be explicit and provide one though.
I appreciate that you took the time to write a comment.
You remind me of a friend that has been waiting for 2 years to get some experience in order to give advice to beginners.
He just keeps giving strange advice and the junior devs simply ignore him.
The MDN webdocs just provide the following note:
If you're writing ES6 compatible code, then rest parameters should be preferred.
I never said that you should write all of your code with the tricks that I used, they're just presented as an interesting read.
It seems you just missed the point completely.
Nice tips for any of those contests to do things in the few number of lines, but I'm with David Hunt, this is almost a must set of error lint rules. In enterprise apps, never sacrifice readability for fewer lines of code without a very, very good reason.
If you don't like his comments, I might say why did the world need another "10 javascript..." repeat article?
"You remind me of a friend that has been waiting for 2 years to get some experience in order to give advice to beginners."
Your friend is right. When I see advice like the ones in the article, I usually say "I hope your doctor and your lawyer are better at their job than this."
I've handled over a 100 front-end interviews for my employers and code like that would seriously hurt candidates chances.
It's pretty obvious that these tricks do not make your JavaScript more readable, they're not supposed to help with readability.
The purpose is to show the reader that things in JavaScript can also work this way.
I'm sure you're an expert in the bleeding edge technology that your employer is using and you're really good at those interviews, but it seems you just missed the point of this article.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pra...
Practical:
"The purpose is to show the reader that things in JavaScript can also work this way." - even you yourself describe this precisely as theoretical. Practical is "here is how this should be done".
Look, I would not be commenting here, if I haven't seen over and over again junior devs reading such articles and rushing to use tricks from them everywhere. The best course of action for you would be to remove half of the tricks you've written, since only harm can come out of them. The question is - are you willing to admit you were wrong or is your ego more important to you than your readers?
Nothing wrong with the reduce here.
You can skip the initial value in your reduce, but now you have to check that the array length is greater than zero.
So you've introduced a serious bug in your application to save typing two characters.
Also as others have pointed out use of var is discouraged, use of arguments keyword is discouraged and a few other bad practices.