Dude chaining in JavaScript is so fucking ugly but so trendy.

thing.doStuff().doThing().then().doMoreStuff().orDont()

Like fuck off with that.

So, I was going to complain about JS being finicky and not making a damned bit of sense, but it turns out that it wasn't JS's fault. Not entirely, anyway. It was the halfassed JS minifier middleware (written by the legendary dev himself) that was breaking the JS while writing it to the page.

The original problem:
My code worked. I removed some comments. Big ol' block of //'s. And suddenly $() isn't a function. But if I call $(); at the top, it all works!

It turns out the "minifier" caused JS to think my code was chaining off the previous JS line in the rendering pipeline instead of being a separate statement. so all it really needed was a `;` at the start. What threw me, though, was the last line of the previous blob of (non-minified) JS was a comment, so it should be a separate statement, right?

But as it turns out...

```
console
// JS really is finicky.
.log('Sigh.');
```

I fucking hate chained methods. Ok, not all of them. Query things like array.where.first... that stuff is ok.

Specially if it's part of the std lib of a lang, which would be probably written by a very competent coder and under scrutiny.
But if you're not that person, chances are you'll produce VASTLY inferior code.

I'm talking about things like:
expect(n).to.be(x).and.not(y)

And the reason I don't like it is because it's all fine and dandy at first.

But once you get to the corner cases, jesus christ, prepare to read some docpages.

You end up reading their entire fucking docs (which are suboptimal sometimes) trying to figure if this fucking dsl can do what you need.

Then you give up and ask in a github issue. And the dev first condescends you and then tells you that the beautiful eden of code he created doesn't let you do what you want.

The corner cases usually involve nesting or some very specific condition, albeit reasonable.

This kind of design is usually present in testing or validation js libraries. And I hate all of those for it.

If you want a modern js testing lib that doesn't suck ass, check avajs. It's as simple as testing should be.

No magic globals, no chaining, zero config. Fuck globals forced by libs.

But my favorite thing about it that is I can put a breakpoint wherever the fuck I want and the debugger stops right fucking there.

Code is basically lines of statements, that's it, and by overusing chaining, by encouraging the grouping of dozens of statements into one, you are preventing me from controlling these statements on MY code.

As an end dev, I only expect complexity increases to come from the problems themselves rather than from needlessly "beautified" apis.

When people create their own shitty dsl, an image comes to my mind of an incoherent rambling man that likes poetry a lot and creates his own martial art, which looks pretty but will get your ass kicked against the most basic styles of fighting.

I fucking hate esoteric code.

Even if I had to execute a list of functions, I'd rather send them in an array instead of being able to chain them because:
a) tree shaking would spare from all the functions i didn't import
b) that's what fucking arrays are for, to contain several things.

This bad style of coding is a result of how low the barrier to code in higher level langs are.

As a language or library gets easier to use you might think that's a positive thing. But at the same time it breeds laziness.

Js has such a low learning curve that it attacts the wrong kind of devs, the lazy, the uninspired, the medium.com reader, the "i just care about my paycheck" ones.

Someone might think that by bashing bad js devs I'm trying to elevate myself.

That'd be extremely stupid. That's like beating a retarded blind man in a game and then saying "look, I'm way better than this retarded blind man".

I'm not on a risky point of view, just take a stroll down npmjs.com. That place is a landfill. Not really npm's fault, in fact their search algorithm is good.

It's just the community.

Every lang has a ratio of competence. Of competent to incompetent devs.

You have the lang devs and most intelligent lib devs at the top. At the bottom you have the bottom.

Well js has a horrible ratio. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that most js devs still consider using import or await the future.

You could say that js improved a lot, that it was way worse beforr. But I hate chaining now, and i hated back then!

On top of this, you have these blog web companies, sucking the "js tutorial" business tit dry, pumping out the most obscenely unprofessional and bar lowering tutorials you can imagine, further capping the average intelligence of most js devs.

And abusing SEO while they're at it, littering the entire web with copy paste content.

Why should devrant have comment chaining feature?

Example attached.

Source: Imgur

Enlightened my colleague on the concept of JS promises, chaining of events, multiple deferrals...

Ah, his code is looking much readable already!

Yeah, this is why we don't do chaining...

Mind blow of the week: JavaScript has no "else if".

It's always two tokens. Not one. It's NOT like python's "elif".

It's ALWAYS chaining an additional and DISTINCT if statement in the else clause of the first. It is NOT creating multiple comparison paths in the same if statement as it would seem.

For example:

if(a) console.log(a);
else if(b) console.log(b);
else console.log(c);

Simply needs more proper indentation to show which "if" the "else" actually belongs to:

if(a) console.log(a);
else
if(b) console.log(b);
else console.log (c);

Major rant incoming. Before I start ranting I’ll say that I totally respect my professor’s past. He worked on some really impressive major developments for the military and other companies a long time ago. Was made an engineering fellow at Raytheon for some GPS software he developed (or lead a team on I should say) and ended up dropping fellowship because of his health. But I’m FUCKING sick of it. So fucking fed up with my professor. This class is “Data Structures in C++” and keep in mind that I’ve been programming in C++ for almost 10 years with it being my primary and first language in OOP.

Throughout this entire class, the teacher has been making huge mistakes by saying things that aren’t right or just simply not knowing how to teach such as telling the students that “int& varOne = varTwo” was an address getting put into a variable until I corrected him about it being a reference and he proceeded to skip all reference slides or steps through sorting algorithms that are wrong or he doesn’t remember how to do it and saying, “So then it gets to this part and....it uh....does that and gets this value and so that’s how you do it *doesnt do rest of it and skips slide*”.

First presentation I did on doubly linked lists. I decided to go above and beyond and write my own code that had a menu to add, insert at position n, delete, print, etc for a doubly linked list. When I go to pull out my code he tells me that I didn’t say anything about a doubly linked list’s tail and head nodes each have a pointer pointing to null and so I was getting docked points. I told him I did actually say it and another classmate spoke up and said “Ya” and he cuts off saying, “No you didn’t”. To which I started to say I’ll show you my slides but he cut me off mid sentence and just yelled, “Nope!”. He docked me 20% and gave me a B- because of that. I had 1 slide where I had a bullet point mentioning it and 2 slides with visual models showing that the head node’s previousNode* and the tail node’s nextNode* pointed to null.

Another classmate that’s never coded in his life had screenshots of code from online (literally all his slides were a screenshot of the next part of code until it finished implementing a binary search tree) and literally read the code line by line, “class node, node pointer node, ......for int i equals zero, i is less than tree dot length er length of tree that is, um i plus plus.....”
Professor yelled at him like 4 times about reading directly from slide and not saying what the code does and he would reply with, “Yes sir” and then continue to read again because there was nothing else he could do.

Ya, he got the same grade as me.

Today I had my second and final presentation. I did it on “Separate Chaining”, a hashing collision resolution. This time I said fuck writing my own code, he didn’t give two shits last time when everyone else just screenshot online example code but me so I decided I’d focus on the PowerPoint and amp it up with animations on models I made with the shapes in PowerPoint. Get 2 slides in and he goes,
Prof: Stop! Go back one slide.
Me: Uh alright, *click*
(Slide showing the 3 collision resolutions: Open Addressing, Separate Chaining, and Re-Hashing)
Prof: Aren’t you forgetting something?
Me: ....Not that I know of sir
Prof: I see Open addressing, also called Open Hashing, but where’s Closed Hashing?
Me: I believe that’s what Seperate Chaining is sir
Prof: No
Me: I’m pretty sure it is
*Class nods and agrees*
Prof: Oh never mind, I didn’t see it right

Get another 4 slides in before:
Prof: Stop! Go back one slide
Me: .......alright *click*
(Professor loses train of thought? Doesn’t mention anything about this slide)
Prof: I er....um, I don’t understand why you decided not to mention the other, er, other types of Chaining. I thought you were going to back on that slide with all the squares (model of hash table with animations moving things around to visualize inserting a value with a collision that I spent hours on) but you didn’t.
(I haven’t finished the second half of my presentation yet you fuck! What if I had it there?)
Me: I never saw anything on any other types of Chaining professor
Prof: I’m pretty sure there’s one that I think combines Open Addressing and Separate Chaining
Me: That doesn’t make sense sir. *explanation why* I did a lot of research and I never saw any other.
Prof: There are, you should have included them.
(I check after I finish. Google comes up with no other Chaining collision resolution)

He docks me 20% and gives me a B- AGAIN! Both presentation grades have feedback saying, “MrCush, I won’t go into the issues we discussed but overall not bad”.

Thanks for being so specific on a whole 20% deduction prick! Oh wait, is it because you don’t have specifics?
Bye 3.8 GPA

Is it me or does he have something against me?

My elementary IT teacher whom I owe all my enthusiasm to introduced me to MIT Scratch, and I found the concept of chaining dumb operations to accomplish tasks fascinating. Later I learned c++ which I hated vehemently for a couple months until it clicked. After that I studied C#, which I managed to use for over a year before realising what copy by reference actually means. With that realization my understanding of programming languages was essentially complete and since then I have only learned techniques and tricks and languages that add few new ideas, and I don't expect anything to fundamentally change my understanding of programming. All of that was 5 years ago BTW.

[JS]
Which one do you think is faster? Pushing callbacks to an array and iterating them when they're due, or this:
const oldcb = cb;
cb = () => { someNewStuff(); oldcb(); }
The callbacks can never be removed and will finish fast, their order shouldn't matter.

It realy just warms my heart when the customer provides us with software that I need to go through manually and test every method individual before we can start implement it. Then I have to spend hours testing every fucking bit of it to make sure the modules we control with said sw doesnt meet their untimely doom cause the sw is too broken to actually run.
Any.net developers on this plattform? If you doesnt use these xml comments for commenting methods, you're on my hit list.
I realy hate these back-alley developers. Sorry of I sound salty and whiny but seriously. These past 3 weeks, most of my time Ive just worked around issues instead of solving them, cause their sw just keeps chaining good coding down to the ground. And theres no documentation cause "we have higher priorities ", testing is done by us at release cause "its faster and we dont make mistakes" and worst of all, our contact quote on quote "senior experienced developer lead design im far up my own ass and way more experienced than you" guy is a consultant who is only reachable about 2h on a daily basis.

Tldr: we live in a society.

I thought i knew promises until today, but Promise.all and chaining really destroyed my confidence today.

research 10.09.2024

I successfully wrote a model verifier for xor. So now I know it is in fact working, and the thing is doing what was previously deemed impossible, calculating xor on a single hidden layer.

Also made it generalized, so I can verify it for any type of binary function.

The next step would be to see if I can either train for combinations of logical operators (or+xor, and+not, or+not, xor+and+..., etc) or chain the verifiers.

If I can it means I can train models that perform combinations of logical operations with only one hidden layer.

Also wrote a version that can sum a binary vector every time but I still have
to write a verification table for that.

If chaining verifiers or training a model to perform compound functions of multiple operations is possible, I want to see about writing models that can do neighborhood max pooling themselves in the hidden layer, or other nontrivial operations.

Lastly I need to adapt the algorithm to work with values other than binary, so that means divorcing the clamp function from the entire system. In fact I want to turn the clamp and activation into a type of bias, so a network
that can learn to do binary operations can also automatically learn to do non-binary functions as well.

TIL : how important method chaining is

!rant
Backward chaining algorithm in less than 20 lines, any bidder?

TIL about optional chaining in JS.

I can sleep better tonight.

so

?. <- optional chaining
?? <- nullish coalescing
? <- conditional/ternary operator

dunno why, I can't seem to remember optional chaining off the top of my head.

obj &&
obj.property1 &&
obj.property1.property2 &&
obj.property1.property2.property3

OR

(((obj || {}).property1 || {}).property 2 || {}).property3

It's mostly for projects that don't support Webpack 5 optional chaining (like Vue 2).
I prefer the second one since it's shorter

stateofjs survey reminds me of all that's wrong with JavaScript: too many frameworks each of which has to reinvent the wheel and depend on too many node_modules child dependencies, most don't support TypeScript properly (ever tried to convert a node-express-mongoose tutorial to TS?), there is still no proper type support in JS core language, and browser features get added in form of overly complex APIs instead of handy DOM methods.

Instead the community gets excited about micro-improvements like optional chaining which has been possible in other languages for decades.

At least there is something like TypeScript, but I don't like its syntax either, it's overly verbose and adds too much "Java feeling" to JavaScript in my opinion.

Also there is too much JS in web development, as CSS and HTML seem to have missed adding enough native functionality that works reliable cross browser to build websites in a descriptive way without misunderstanding web dev for application engineering.

After all, I'd rather have frontend PHP than more JavaScript everywhere.

Anyway, at least the survey has the option to choose how satisfied or unsatisfied people are about certain aspects of JS. But I already suspect that most respondents will seem to be very happy and eager to learn the latest hype train frameworks or stick to their beloved React in the future.

function chaining is a blessing. 🙊

Javascript really needs a way to define consts for a block 1 level up.

So instead of

const el = wide ? els.wide : els.tall

You can do

if (wide) const el = els.wide
if (!els) const el = els.tall

// etc..

Just makes chaining and backup values way easier than inline conditionals 🤔

ohhhhh I am pissseddddddddddd

itss the fucking pytorch.module class it would seem !

I do exactly the same goddamn shit as its supposed to do in a goddamn notebook and run it step by step and the fucking model trains and the output values change !!!! and the loss decreases !!

I do this in the goddamn class derived from model with a call to model.parameters() and the fucker fails !!!

why ???
why ?????
why ??????
is it cloning the goddamn parameters so the references aren't there ????
seems to work goddamn fine when i call a layer and activation function at a goddamn time chaining the calls one after another !!!!!!

UGHHHH IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU DEFINE THE LOSS AND OPTIMIZER OUTSIDE THE FUCKING CLASS IN A SEPERATE TRAINING FUNCTION IT DOESN'T TRAIN !!!!!!

WHY ??
A REFERENCE IS A GODDAMN REFERENCE !!!!

Developers are magical machines powered by coffee that can make something out of nothing. The CEO machine runs on expensive Amazonian coffee and comes up with ideas and unreasonable deadlines. Daisy chaining them makes the CEO machine's idea into a product with uncommented code and console.log()s left over from development.

line breaks after 100 or so characters suck. function chaining will look bad in one line, but it doesn't mean we need to limit all our lines to a hard length.
ex:

config.logger.e(TAG, "func() called with: p1 = $p1, p2 = $p2, p3 = $p3, p4 = $p4, p5 = $p5")
this is a standard log that i add at the start of my functions . its easy to autogenerate in intellij , even if my class and variable names are much long (like mVideoAnalyticsManager) . when these variables and their string names add up, they will easily go out of the screen and i won't mind scrolling a few seonds to the left to ensure everything is correct (which 99.9% is)

but a fucking ctrl+alt+l and all strings are broken with a fucking +
+
+
+
+)

AAGh its just irritating ://////

How can I test optional chaining in jest?
Should I?