That moment when you write 'bar' instead of 'var' in your JS file.

Huh. ES6's variable destructuting on objects is actually pretty cool.

var {foo, bar, baz} = obj

Is functionally equivalent to this:
var foo = obj.foo
var bar = obj.bar
var baz = obj.baz

I like it! Makes things simpler.

Java: String foo =“bar”;
C#: var foo = “bar”;
Go: var foo string = “bar”

I just started learning Go and I’ve been cringing since.

During one of our 'pop-up' meetings last week.

Ralph: "The test code the developers are checking in is a mess. They don't know what they are doing."

ex.
var foo = SomeLibrary.GetFoo();
Assert.IsNotNull(foo);

Fred: "Ha ha..someone should talk to HR about our hiring practices. These people are literally driving the company backwards."
Me: "I think unit testing is complete waste of time."
- You could almost see the truck hit the wall and splatter watermelon everwhere..took Ralph and Fred a couple of seconds to respond
Fred: "Uh..unit testing is industry best practice. There is scientific evidence that prove testing reduces bugs and increases code quality"
Ralph: "Over 90% of our deployments are rolled back because of bugs. Unit testing will eliminate that."
Me: "Sorry, I disagree."
- Stepping on kittens wouldn't have gotten a worse look from Fred and Ralph
Fred: 'Pretty sure if you ask any professional developer, they'll tell you unit testing and code coverage reduces bugs.'
Me: "I'm not asking anyone else, I'm asking you. Find one failed deployment, just one, over the past 6 months that unit testing or code coverage would have prevented."
- good 3 seconds of awkward silence.
Ralph: "Well, those rollbacks are all mostly due to server mis-configurations. That's not a fair comparison."
Me: "I'm using your words. Unit tests reduces bugs and lack of good tests is the direct reason why we have so many failed deployments"
Boss: "Yea, Ralph...you and Fred kinda said that."
Fred: "No...we need to write good tests. Not this mess."
Me: "Like I said, show me one test you've written that would have prevented a rollback. Just one."
Ralph: "So, what? We do nothing?"
Me: "No, we have to stop worshiping this made up 80% code coverage idol. If not, developers are going to keep writing useless test code just to meet some percent. If we wrote device drivers or frameworks for other developers maybe, but we write CRUD apps. We execute a stored procedure or call a service. This 80% rule doesn't fit for code we write."
Fred: "If the developers took their head out of their ass.."
Me: "Hey!..uh..no, they are doing exactly what they are being told. Meet the 80% requirement, even if doesn't make sense."
Ralph: "Nobody told them to write *that* code."
Boss: "My gosh, what have you and Fred been complaining about for the past hour?"
- Ralph looks at his monitor and brilliantly changes the subject
Ralph: "Oh my f-king god...Trump said something stupid again ..."

At that point I put my headphones on went back to what I was doing. I'm pretty sure Fred and Ralph spent the rest of the day messaging back-n-forth, making fun of me or some random code I wrote 3 years ago (lots of typing and giggling). How can highly educated grown men (one has a masters in CS) get so petty and insecure?

Do you prefer?

var foo = true;
if (some condition){
var foo = false;
}

Or

if (some condition){
var foo = false;
}
else{
var foo = true;
}

When the previous developer doesn't appear to know what casting is...

var foo = Convert.ToBoolean(objDictionary["someKey"].ToString());

What the f*...

SomeType {
var something = {
somethingElse: "blah",
whatever: "halb"
}
var doStuff = function() {
this.something.whatever = "foo";
}
}

Based on what fucking logic are you claiming "something" is _undefined_ while running doStuff()??? What the fuck is wrong with you??? It's a freakin' static context!!!! "SOMETHING" IS DESIGNED TO BE DEFINED ! ! ! ! !

Do you write your comments before or after you write the code?

Do you write var foo = 1; and then go back a line above it / beside it to comment, or do you write the comment line / block first prior to writing the code statement?

package main

// go is very frustrating. in their efforts to keep the language simple, they've broken its consistency :(

// A A is just some arbitrary interface
type A interface {
Foo()
}

// B is an interface requiring a function that returns an A
type B interface {
Bar() A
}

// Aimpl implements A
type Aimpl struct{}

// Foo is Aimpl's implementation of A
func (a Aimpl) Foo() {}

// Bimpl attempts to implement B
type Bimpl struct{}

// Bar is Bimpl's attempt at implementing B.
// problem is, if Bar returns an Aimpl instead of A, the interface is not satisfied
// this is because Go doesn't support implicit upcasting on returns from interfaced objects.
// if we were to simply change the declared return type of Bar() to 'A', without changing
// the returned value, Bimpl will satisfy B.
func (b Bimpl) Bar() Aimpl {
return Aimpl{}
}

var _ B = Bimpl{}

func main() {

}

One dev at the company I work is developing an API and the response for all the requests are basically the same.

However, for example, if you request a login and your credentials are wrong the response gives you:

{
'foo':[],
'var':[],
'msg':'credentials error'
}

But if the credentials are correct, the response gives you:

{
'foo':[
'stuff1':1,
'stuff2':2,
'stuff3':3
],
'var':[
'var1':1,
'var2':2,
'var3':3
],
'msg':'logged in!'
}

Is that correct? I mean, does that compromises security?