Whats the most irritating "if statement condition" that you've come across?

Inspired by the Pinocchio's discussion with prince charming in "Shrek":

Prince Charming: You! You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
Pinocchio: Uh, I don't know where he's not.
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.

Comments

[Johnny Reina]

const foo = condition ? true : false;

[Donald]

When I was a junior, a senior dev on my team didn't know what a ternary operator was. When I explained it, she told me not to put any fancy programming stuff in the code.

So instead, I'd see something like this:

if (validate(objMyObj)) {
    isValid = true;
} else {
    isValid = false;
}

[Ben Halpern]

Couldn't that be done without even a ternary statement? Not sure the language, but perhaps something like:

isValid = validate(objMyObj).toBoolean();

Or even just

isValid = validate(objMyObj)

if we're just looking for truthiness.

[Donald]

Yeah, I guess it was ambiguous, but since they didn't know (and didn't like) ternary operators, you'd find the same thing just as if/else.

Although, I'd say the first one would be better. Something like,

isValid = validate(objMyObj).Result;

[Ben Sinclair]

It might be just me, but once I've got a variable name that implies it's a boolean, I want it to be a boolean. If isValid was some kind of object, for example, then it's going to be really confusing to see it in a debugging message later on, and I'm going to wonder what I broke.

[Donald]

In C#, you'd probably have a property like .Result or .IsValid, and although Result is ambiguous, I see it often enough, especially with async methods. To make it less ambiguous, validate() would be CheckIfObjIsValid(myObj).Result, but that's a debate about naming conventions (and part of why I made this post).

[Scott Hannen]

Someone might read this and wonder why you split hairs over something seemingly trivial. But focus on these tiny decisions is critical. Even if they are subjective, they reflect someone thinking

• This isn't good enough
• This is good enough
• That was good enough, but this is better.

and all for reasons that they've thought through. It costs seconds and pays minutes. It pays hours when it prevents introducing a bug or more complicated code or when someone else follows the good example. Code is made entirely of details. Code matters, therefore details matter.

[Valentin Baca]

To be a bit fair, the ternary operator can be a bit decisive and if it goes over several lines, you're usually better off with if-else.

The best part is your example doesn't even need a ternary operator lol

isValid = validate(objMyObj);

[Donald]

Yep, that was what made it even more hilarious. They applied the same logic in your ternary example in a normal if/else.

Would you believe me if I told you they said they did code reviews?

[Valentin Baca]

Good ol' javascript "scream boolean casting":

const foo = !!condition;

[Kodengo]

I like them nested as well:

const foo = 2 < 3 ? 2 > 3 ? false : true : false;

[Johnny Reina]

I'm screaming. One of my coworkers is refactoring some code with ternaries nested several levels deep. The logic is so bad that it temporarily broke my understanding of conditionals.

[Michael Scriney]

Still trying to figure this one out

var tt= false;

if(!tt){
 //stuff
}
if(tt){
 //other stuff
}

[Ben Sinclair]

Probably for quick debugging? Rename "tt" to "debuggingModeActivatedGoFaster" for verbosity.

[Kodengo]

if (!invalid(param)) {
return;
} else {
throw new InvalidException();
}

[Valentin Baca]

It's making me so mad! Love it