Fucking awesome. The 'encryption backdoor law' in Australia went through!

Now, whenever served with such warrants, companies which are active in Australia will have to pay hefty fines if they don't give encrypted messages to law enforcement in readable form. No matter whether this means just decrypting it with the keys they have or pushing backdoors/inject code into the messaging apps/services in order to extract the contents.

Now let's see how much the big companies really care about their users! (I'd expect them to pull out of Australia but the chance that this'll happen is as tiny as about nothing)

TOP 10 PROGRAMMING BEST PRACTICES

#1 Start numbering from 0.
#10 Sort elements in lexicographic order for readability.
    #2 Use consistent indentation.
#3 use Consistent Casing.
#4.000000000000001 Use floating-point arithmetic only where necessary.
#5 Not avoiding double negations is not smart.
#6 Not recommended is Yoda style.
#7 See rule #7.
#8 Avoid deadlocks.
#9 ISO-8859 is passé - Use UTF-8 if you ▯ Unicode.
#A Prefer base 10 for human-readable messages.
#10 See rule #7.
#10 Don't repeat yourself.

I am asked to refactor this file in order to make it readable
what do you say guys ?

A guy on another team who is regarded by non-programmers as a genius wrote a python script that goes out to thousands of our appliances, collects information, compiles it, and presents it in a kinda sorta readable, but completely non-transferable format. It takes about 25 minutes to run, and he runs it himself every morning. He comes in early to run it before his team's standup.

I wanted to use that data for apps I wrote, but his impossible format made that impractical, so I took apart his code, rewrote it in perl, replaced all the outrageous hard-coded root passwords with public keys, and added concurrency features. My script dumps the data into a memory-resident backend, and my filterable, sortable, taggable web "frontend"(very generous nomenclature) presents the data in html, csv, and json. Compared to the genius's 25 minute script that he runs himself in the morning, mine runs in about 45 seconds, and runs automatically in cron every two hours.

Optimized!

programming languages are not designed to talk to computers, they are designed to be readable by other programmers.

please code like it.

Had a PR blocked yesterday. Oh god, have I introduced a memory leak? Have I not added unit tests? Is there a bug? What horrible thing have I unknowingly done?

... added comments to some code.

Yep apparently “our code needs to be readable without comments, please remove them”.

Time to move on, no signs of intelligent life here.

Code: if(customer.primaryContract)

Boss: "just using a variable as a boolean isn't very readable"

Me:
if(!(!customer.primaryContract != !true).toString() == 'false')

Me: *uploads pre-alpha images of game demo to twitter*

User: "That's a game? It looks like shit."

Me: "I was just showing off a test."

User: "No, like your entire game is garbage."

Me: "Okay? Don't play it."

User: "Also hacking is illegal, so you shouldn't be advertising it in your garbage game."

Me: *explodes into barely readable rant* 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

Having PHP as my most useful skill.

I know various other languages, but they're either too exotic for professional use, or my knowledge about them doesn't have the same depth as with PHP.

People joke about how awful PHP is, and it's not entirely true. The incongruous stuff such as confusing parameter ordering can be fixed with libraries. And PHP7 fixed a lot of the ugly stuff. A good dev can certainly write structured, readable, performant PHP code.

But there is a real hard limit. PHP is missing more complex type definitions present in other languages. A weak type system is like building stuff with popsicle sticks and bits of duct tape, it works fast and perfectly fine for small projects, but the lack of strictness is a problem when you have thousands of classes intertwined in all kinds of complex factory, service and repository patterns. And the simple type hints are still newish and fully optional, which means a lot of people don't use them.

So I regret getting stuck in this self reinforcing loop, where I learn more about a very imperfect language through employment, and keep rolling into jobs using that skill because it's what I'm most experienced with.

"Pythonists don't comment, they write readable code."

Yea, tell that to the list comprehension with three lambdas

Manager: 'Please remove this checkbox from that page.'

Me: 'Sure thing, it was stupid anyway. Just gimme a couple of minutes.'

Legacy code: 'LOL the checkbox is wired to everything else and if you simply remove it the backend will shit itself. There is several hundred lines of inline Javascript in the HTML template with some Thymeleaf stuff managing the form data or just are there to make the code less readable. The controller for the page is a bit more than a thousand lines of spaghetti, no easy way to find where is that specific data necessary and where can be easily removed. Class variables declared between methods, dozens of nested if statements checking shit in every method and the data is passed through like half a dozen other classes. Good luck with that!'

Me: '💩.'

> 3 hour long mandatory online cybersecurity training
> Preaches that the company is very secure and the only risk of being “hacked” is if employees post company data on social media
> oksure.tar.gz
> Bored out of my mine
> Open dev console
> JSON continually getting sent to backend
> Simple structure and human readable fields including {complete: false}
> Open postman
> {complete: true}
> Send
> 200 response
> Refresh page
> Course complete
> :’ )

Muppets.

My coworker comments every line of code I think the code is not readable!

Debugging somones hacked site now, you know some developer messed up when the heckers injected code is more readable and structured than the actual sites...

SUPERVISOR: You wrote this 140 lines method, it's too long. You should split it up, it's not readable
IHateForALiving: Bruh be serious, this is a single switch-case; I can't split it.
SUPERVISOR: Fine, I'll do it.

HIS CODE: He split the 140 lines method into 2 methods: the first is 4 lines long; it's a try-catch surrounding a call to the other method, 136 lines long.

Me trying to install a software :

1. Download the binary file
2. Error this file can't be executed
3. Download the source code
4. Compile
5. Error - instruction not supported by this OS
6. Create a new disk partition
7. Download ubuntu
8. Install ubuntu
9. Apt-get install
10. Error - package not readable by this version of ubuntu
11. Kill myself

Well, it all started off with hardware-level programming involving jumpers and stuff like that... Then came Assembly, which was good.. B, C compilers. Finally came the interpreted languages, and that's where in my opinion the abstraction should've ended. But no, we needed more frameworks, more libraries, even more abstraction! Where does it end? As it seems to be going, I guess that users will have kid toys - no iToys! - for electronics and we'll be programming on with bloated Scratch GUI's. Nothing against Scratch, but that shit ain't proper programming anymore. God I can't wait for the future.

ABSTRACT ALL THE THINGS!!!

Oh and not to mention that all software will be governed in political correctness by some Alex SJW AI shit that became sentient. Not a single programming term will be non-offensive anymore, no matter how hard you try to not offend anyone, or God forbid - don't care about it because you just want to make something that's readable, usable and working!! Terms, UI names for buttons, heck even icons! REMOVE IT BECAUSE IT OFFENDS SOMEONE THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT!!!

Why is the ternary operator such a hated thing? I constantly hear people saying it's less readable, confusing, etc.

I think it's a beautiful, useful, and important operator and I use it constantly wherever readability won't be much affected.

How can you justify a repetitive if/else structure over a ternary, given that you're sure you're not going to put anything else in the ifs?

Whatever happened to DRY?
Whatever happened to KISS?

If those guidelines are what you code by, what's the excuse not to use it?

Because you can't read it as well? Familiarity breeds comprehension and legibility, my dudes.

I spent yesterday refactoring a JavaScript file and it was so fucking bad that I wasn't containing my frustration to the point it git blamed it to make sure I wasn't "wtfing" my boss's code, I wasn't so I went on a rampage.

Anyone who looked at me yesterday would see a pissed off dev with the highest rate of wtf/minute to the screen gesturing and force palming constantly.

I'm a back end dev.
I made a front end code have 90% (?!?!?!) less code, more readable and I can say for sure 10x faster.

There was a fucking setTimeout() with 5 seconds delay to do something that doesn't even need to wait...

Fuck this shit lol.

When you're 6 hours in coding C and notice that you've been using the python code style guide.

8 months working on a spaghetti monolith made me forget how readable code looks like...

Wtf is wrong with stackoverflow I asked a question I get it’s not easy to understand it to answer

But your instead trying to fix my grammar and punctuation! Wtf! It’s 100% readable

People on stackoverflow are obnoxious dicks

Hey. This code look broken. What should I do?

It isn't broken. It's doing what it's supposed to.

Well, it's hard to follow, but it certainly doesn't look right. And it isn't doing what I expect. Also, why is it calling method(a_class1_or_class2) with a class3?

It isn't hard to follow, and it works just fine. Let me show you. ... huh. looks like it isn't right. and there's a comment here saying the calls aren't clear. but it works just fine. Just copy it over and do it the same way.

I already did that. and it isn't working.

What are you talking about? Of course it works fine. Did you check your code?

------

Really, dude? It doesn't work fine. but, guess what? It works fine* when I change it to call that method with a class2 like it asks for. (Surprise!) But I can't tell him that. Nope. Bossmang get offended. Still won't admit I was right about anything, either.

Ahh... the continual joy of working with (and for) trash.

* well, more fine; the rest of the feature is still wrong. but nope, i'm not allowed to fix it. because why would they want anything to work properly? Already-accepted wrong behavior is good enough. Can't clean up the code, either, because that "muddies the waters." Bitch, I couldn't see the bottom of this sewer if it was half an inch deep! Which is more important: the last contributor entry beside the code, or that code being readable and maintainable? or it, you know, working?

doot doot.
need to scoot.

Among my fellow developers at work, there is one guy who stands out because he actually strives to write modular, reusable and readable code. He literally saved me weeks of development by making his code modular enough that I can simply use it almost like a mixin where I only need to provide an alternative template. Note that the feature I'm talking about is for a pretty much sophisticated business process related to handling credit card data. Others in my workplace would just couple their logic tightly with their feature/scope's views.

I really wanna hug him and be his BFF now. #nohomo tho.

Fuck off cancerous piece of shit on stackoverflow whose dick is an obvious inverse proposition to ego and incapablility to read.

I asked if there's "clean" way, of doing something. I provided my solution to the problem

Your answer and coments make it pretty obvious that you:
* don't really care about (code) quality
* value your reputation just as much as some teen on facebook sucking cook for likes or whatever they use now
* downvoted my question because you can't handle critique in the slightest
* You immediately replied with "but op said..." even though I am the fucking op and if I say _imo_ a fucking for-loop within function is less readable than 3 chained function-calls it and does not include the feature I asked for, it means you have to justify your answer and not get triggered and downvote my fucking question.

After I confronted him about this shit he just said "If you had studied the language for more than 10 minutes you would have known than you can't do that."

And if you had some a basic reading skill you could improve my workaround or tell me just that, instead of providing me with that useless information you vomited out just to get some ez SO reputation.

Piece of shit didn't even deny the anyyhing.

Shove a vibrator up your ass until it arrives at your skull and activate it. Maybe that will stimulate your brain or hopefully upgrade it.

I don't care how much "reputition" you may have "earned" on the internet. I am not afraid to call your bullshit or your sheer pathetic existence out.

People like this are are the reason SO gets so much hsge and even tough I got an improved version for my workaround (from an other user), I'm nowhere near happiness.

Note, the Useful-to-retarded-ratio is
1: 3

Background: I'm proficient at PowerShell, I was told that I got hired to my previous job (as DevOps engineer) mainly because of that skill.

Few months after I started I wrote a script to automate some processes. My boss saw the script and told me that it was too complicated, and that I should make it more simple.
Now I'm all into clean code, meaningful names, small functions.
So the code was readable and maintainable.
I asked him in what way is it complicated. He didn't know exactly. (Later I figured that he didn't know of some of the (built-in) cmdlets and functions I used.)
He raised his hand high and made a gesture and explained that I'm "that high (skill? enthusiasm?)", then lowered his hand to a lower position to mark the bottom line, then raised it up half way up and said that he wants me here - in the middle.
After that he added: "This is not Microsoft! and we don't own the 3 other buildings that can be seen from our office window" and pointed at the window.

I was surprised by his comment, I didn't know how to respond.
I've got more stories to share about that workplace.
I can't believe I stayed at that place for 1 year and 2 months.

This happens to me all the time at my new company, the amount of wtfs I say in some js files, man...

Found a post by G.R. on Linkedln:
"A lazy programmer is also often a good programmer:

- Writes little code to achieve the goal
- Automates all boring jobs
- He does not develop things he does not know yet
- Sleeps at night, then make sure that if the shutdown occurs, the system will restart
- He knows he forgets things, then writes readable and not cryptic code
- Try to reuse what he did
- He does not like copy-paste (too boring to keep)

It takes training to be lazy"

Love this quote

Okay, I love programming - making my code better faster more readable^^ but I am not a nerd, I have no idea what's going on in star wars or star trek, I do not fucking care about Game of Thrones - I prefer to go out in some clubs and so... I hate it when people are so fucking surprised about my job and interests.

There are programmers who are not nerds live with it!

The company I work for wants me to create an app to compress "foxit phantompdf" files, so that they are still readable after compression.

(referencing my last rant)

People argue all the time what text editor is the best: VSCode, Sublime, NP++, Emacs, Nano, Vim, etc.

I just remembered when I used to do my HTML, CSS and JS in regular Windows Notepad, as a requirement in my Web Developement classes...

I think some good came from that, I picked up a habit of writing my code very neatly, easily readable.

Ever had the feeling "My code is working fine but I know it's so messy and I should make it readable for others!"

-Never done anything

One thing I learnt after over two years of working as a programmer is that sometimes making your code DRY is less important than making your code readable, ESPECIALLY if you're working on a shared codebase. All those abstractions and metaprogramming may look good in your eyes, but might cause your teammates their coding time because they need to parse your mini-framework. So code wisely and choose the best approach that works FOR YOUR TEAM.

TL.DR.: Emojis in commit messages + bad commit messages made by Microsoft™ employees.

Yes, I'm looking at you Microsoft. It would be helpful if I can, you know, understand your commit messages instead of trying to guess wtf _that_ emoji means. That is, if it is the same emoji on my machine. We didn't figure that one out yet. And no, "Some 💄 changes ✨" is not a good commit message, even if you interpret it correctly (which depends on your emoji icon set).

idk about you, but that shitty 💄 emoji tends to be (see image) and I happen to associate that with an XLR audio cable. I had to ask someone else to understand a commit message; a message supposed to be explicit—stating what you changed and optionally why you changed it (you can off-load that part to an issue tracker).

Furthermore, that "Some 💄 changes ✨" commit did none of that. "I made cosmetic changes somewhere for some reason without linking to an issue." If you didn't catch that little detail yet: "COSMETIC CHANGES" is vague as fuck. What is a cosmetic change?

* Does a cosmetic change mean adjusting indentation?
* Does it mean deleting unnecessary abstraction to make the code more readable?
* Does it mean refactoring code to add that beauty factor?
* Does it mean all of the above? Or perhaps a specific combination of these?

Human communication is shit enough, don't make it worse than it already is.

Developers

that

put

every

line

of

code

on

a

new

line

Why??????? Seriously this shit is not making it more readable you know

Woke up at 5am with the realization that I could use regular expressions to parse the string representation of regular expressions to build this program to parse regular expressions into more human-readable English.

I am so tired.

Ok... Indentation styles.
Usually I'm an advocate for letting people program how they want as long as it's readable, etc.
But I'm training somebody at the moment and had to bite my tongue when they started doing this...

CR: "Add x here (to y) so it fits our code standards"
> No other Y has an X. None.

CR: "Don't ever use .html_safe"
> ... Can't render html without it. Also, it's already been sanitized, literally by sanitize(), written by the security team.

CR: "Haven't seen the code yet; does X change when resetting the password?"
> The feature doesn't have or reference passwords. It doesn't touch anything even tangentially related to passwords.
> Also: GO READ THE CODE! THAT'S YOUR BLOODY JOB!

CR: "Add an 'expired?' method that returns '!active'?"
> Inactive doesn't mean expired. Yellow doesn't mean sour. There's already an 'is_expired?' method.

CR: "For logging, always use json so we can parse it. Doesn't matter if we can't read it; tools can."
CR: "For logging, never link log entries to user-readable code references; it's a security concern."
CR: "Make sure logging is human-readable and text-searchable and points back to the code."
> Confused asian guy, his hands raised.

CR: "Move this data formatting from the view into the model."
> No. Views are for formatting.

CR: "Use .html() here since you're working with html"
> .html() does not support html. It converts arrays into html.

NONE OF THIS IS USEFUL! WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ MY CODE!?

dfjasklfagjklewrjakfljasdf

If u drink milk... it wont be readable...😅😅😅

Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server.

There is no technology on Earth that speaks worse of Microsoft than is this crap. Nothing they ever made (not even Comic Sans) is as bad as Sharepoint.

No proper editor. Everything is slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. To run it you need a state-of-the-art server. There is no way to make the UI modern, as Sharepoint itself is built upon 1995 era HTML. Tables in tables in tables in tables in tables. And even if you do a web part that's readable, it will be wrapped in shit and presented to the client anyway.
It's so easy to break too. Most of the time I was just watching why the fuck it didn't work. Huge problem with caching as well. Deploying any change requires 10 minutes of manual labor.

I get why companies want to use it. Out of the box it's got quite a few very nice features, and aside from the problems setting it up, and hardware requirements, it works decently well.

But I won't come near it unless I'm paid 100$ per hour or starving to death.

As someone in charge of reviewing this code, how would you react to this function that contains, what could be, the longest ever readable return statement.

Well, if your tests fails because it expects 1557525600000 instead of 1557532800000 for a date it tells you exactly: NOTHING.

Unix timestamp have their point, yet in some cases human readability is a feature. So why the fuck don't you display them not in a human readable format?

Now if you'd see:

2019-05-10T22:00:00+00:00

vs the expected

2019-05-11T00:00:00+00:00

you'd know right away that the first date is wrong by an offset of 2 hours because somebody fucked up timezones and wasn't using a UTC calculation.

So even if want your code to rely on timestamps, at least visualize your failures in a human readable way. (In most cases I argue that keeping dates as an iso string would be JUST FUCKING FINE performance-wise.)

Why do have me parse numbers? Show me the meaningful data.

Timestamps are for computers, dates are for humans.

Made the notif. list more readable B-)

Sad. Got a new job. Apparently, readable code is not a priority. My suggestions were being ignored. Does the benefits of condensing an if-else to a simple one-line return statement really that hard to understand? Does making clean and readable code should be an optional thing to consider? It doesn't help that I'm the youngest, they felt like I don't have enough street cred. I'm starting to hate my job.

SICK AND TIRED OF READABILITY VS. EFFICIENCY!!!!!!!

I HAD TO SEPARATE A 4 LOC JSON STRING, WHICH HAD AN ARRAY OF A SINGLE KEY-VALUE PAIRS (TOTAL OF 10 OBJECTS IN THE ARRAY).

ITS READABLE IF YOU KNOW JSON. HOW HARD IS TO READ JSON FORMAT IF YOU GET YOUR STYLE AND INDENTATION PROPERLY?!?

SO I HAD TO
BREAK THE POOR FREAKING JSON APART TO A FUCKING DIFFERENT YAML FILE FORMAT ONLY SO I CAN CALL IT FROM THERE TO THE MAIN CONTROLLER, ITERATE AND MANIPULATE ALL THE ID AND VALUES FROM YAML BACK TO MATCH THE EXPECTED JSON RESPONSE IN THE FRONT END.

THE WHOLE PROCESS TOOK ME ABOUT 15 MINUTES BUT STILL, THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE DRIVES ME INSANE.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I WASTE TIME AT AN ALREADY WORKING PIECE OF CODE, TO MAKE IT LESS EFFICIENT AND A SLIGHTLY BIT MORE READABLE?!? FML.

++++++++[>+>++>+++>++++>+++++>++++++>+++++++>++++++++>+++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++++>+++++++++++++>++++++++++++++>+++++++++++++++>++++++++++++++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-]>>>>>>>>>>>-.+<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-.+<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>++.--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>+++.---<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>+.-<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--.++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>-.+<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>+.-<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----.++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----.++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----.++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----.++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>+.-<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<.

Dev: Ok refactor this following block of code to make it more readable/maintainable while still ensuring the tests pass

*** Block is an absolute mess of nested ternaries, poorly named functions, single letter variables and outdated comments. An underhand pitch if there ever was one ***

Interview Candidate: Why would you refactor code if the tests are already passing?

Dev: …… NEXT.

why does everyone always give me backtalk when i want to make my files smaller and more readable

"no you should put your scripts, style and template all in one file, theres no need to put it separate"

alright while we are at it, lets just write the entire project in 1 single file

Last week our department drama queen was showing off Visual Studio’s ability to create a visual code map.
He focused on one “ball of mud”, vilifying the number of references, naming, etc and bragging he’s been cleaning up the code. Typical “Oooohhh…this code is such a mess…good thing I’m fixing it all..” nonsense. Drama queen forgot I wrote that ‘ball of mud’

Me: “So, what exactly are you changing?”
DK: “Everything. It’s a mess”
Me: “OK, are any of the references changing? What exactly is the improvement?”
DK: “There are methods that accept Lists. They should take IEnumerables.”
Me: “How is that an improvement?”
<in a somewhat condescending tone>
DK: “Uh…testability. Took me almost two weeks to make all the changes. It was a lot of work, but now the code is at least readable now.”
Me: “Did you write any tests?”
DK: “Um…no…I have no idea what uses these projects.”
Me: “Yes you do, you showed me map.”
DK: “Yes, but I don’t know how they are being used. All the map shows are the dependencies.”
Me: “Do you know where the changes are being deployed?”
DK: “I suppose the support team knows. Not really our problem.”
Me: “You’re kinda right. It’s not anyone’s problem.”
DK: “Wha…huh…what do you mean?”
Me: “That code has been depreciated ever since the business process changed over 4 years ago.”
DK: “Nooo…are you sure? The references were everywhere.”
Me: “Not according to your map. Looks like just one solution. It can be deleted, let me do that real quick”
<I delete the solution+code from source control>
Me: “Man, sorry you wasted all that time.”

I could tell he was kinda’ pissed and I wasn’t really sorry. :)

Android Studio knows how to make text readable.

maybe I'm really pedantic, but I fucking hate people who write code without a consistent form or style... putting spaces or breaks randomly or not at all is SO fucking annoying and I'm wasting time converting it to a more readable form... THEY FUCKING COULD HAVE DONE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR FUCK SAKE!!

Just read an article that really grinds my gears. Its about coding in other languages. Not programming languages, but literally other languages.

Btw I learned to code in Spanish and I'm not against coding in programming languages using variable names in other languages.

That's fine.

What pissed me off was that the author claimed that we should be able to code Fucking JavaScript in SWAHILI or other languages available. What kind of PC bullshit is that!

Coding is barely fucking readable and now we have to make standards for Multilanguage support. Just learn the less than 60 reserved words you lazy fuck and code with them! I leaned to code with shitty tutorials in Spanish and theres no 1000x resources out there and this author claims you can't code unless you know english.

Granted. It's easier but wtf not just learn it. When I coded in Java in Spanish, I didn't know wtf a Class was or ags meant. So what. I memorized that shit. How? By coding!

Why bring this PC shit to programming? The author thinks there are few programmers bc we don't support fucking SWAHILI in JavaScript. Fuck no!

Now if you want to support this initiative. Think of this,

...legacy code

...in 32+ languages.

Have fun debugging this thing.

What the f...
minified and obfuscated javascript code is more readable then the c# code of my colleague jeez...👹😡 what the f

Holy mother of god, Signal is working on a feature which makes that the sender part of the metadata is not readable for them (of course you still have accounts but not sure how they obfuscate that part) anymore.

This is taking metadata protection to the next motherfucking level.

I once made a .less files of 400 lines and today I redid it completely,

The file is now only 40 lines long and readable again

Every time I look at someone elses code, and try to do it just as nice.

Languages like python and R are some-what high level languages, with an easy syntax and very readable code. This useful essentially to make it easier for non-programmers to use it. For me as a software developer with +4 years of professional programming. I started with Assembly, Quick-Basic to C++, Java then C#, I found Python super convenient, and at times way too convenient.
At first it felt like I was cheating, and would not consider myself actually writing code, more like pseudo-coding.
After a year or so, I got used to it and it became my default, but it still does not feel right .. is anyone else feeling the same?
I do believe that coding the hard way is not always the right way, but I am just wired that way.

Hey Python, why in the ever loving readability universe I can't break the following command across multiple lines?

df.replace(...).apply(...).reset_index().drop(...)

Oh, but I hear you say "Hitko, why you can break it into multiple lines if you break within brackets!"

To which I ask you, does this shit look any more readable?

df.replace(...
).apply(...
).reset_index(
).drop(...)

That moment when you replace
If (blablabla) {
return Yes;
}
else {
return No;
}
with
return blablabla;
And it not passed code review because "We should have readable code"

Today on "How the Fuck is Python a Real Language?": Lambda functions and other dumb Python syntax.

Lambda functions are generally passed as callbacks, e.g. "myFunc(a, b, lambda c, d: c + d)". Note that the comma between c and d is somehow on a completely different level than the comma between a and b, even though they're both within the same brackets, because instead of using something like, say, universally agreed-upon grouping symbols to visually group the lambda function arguments together, Python groups them using a reserved keyword on one end, and two little dots on the other end. Like yeah, that's easy to notice among 10 other variable and argument names. But Python couldn't really do any better, because "myFunc(a, b, (c, d): c + d)" would be even less readable and prone to typos given how fucked up Python's use of brackets already is.

And while I'm on the topic of dumb Python syntax, let's look at the switch, um, match statements. For a long time, people behind Python argued that a bunch of elif statements with the same fucking conditions (e.g. x == 1, x == 2, x == 3, ...) are more readable than a standard switch statement, but then in Python 3.10 (released only 1 year ago), they finally came to their senses and added match and case keywords to implement pattern matching. Except they managed to fuck up yet again; instead of a normal "default:" statement, the default statement is denoted by "case _:". Because somehow, everywhere else in the code _ behaves as a normal variable name, but in match statement it instead means "ignore the value in this place". For example, "match myVar:" and "case [first, *rest]:" will behave exactly like "[first, *rest] = myVar" as long as myVar is a list with one or more elements, but "case [_, *rest]:" won't assign the first element from the list to anything, even though "[_, *rest] = myVar" will assign it to _. Because fuck consistency, that's why.

And why the fuck is there no fallthrough? Wouldn't it make perfect sense to write

case ('rgb', r, g, b):
case ('argb', _, r, g, b):
case ('rgba', r, g, b, _):
case ('bgr', b, g, r):
case ('abgr', _, b, g, r):
case ('bgra', b, g, r, _):

and then, you know, handle r, g, and b values in the same fucking block of code? Pretty sure that would be more readable than having to write "handeRGB(r, g, b)" 6 fucking times depending on the input format. Oh, and never mind that Python already has a "break" keyword.

Speaking of the "break" keyword, if you try to use it outside of a loop, you get an error "'break' outside loop". However, there's also the "continue" keyword, and if you try to use it outside of a loop, you get an error "'continue' not properly in loop". Why the fuck are there two completely different error messages for that? Does it mean there exists some weird improper syntax to use "continue" inside of a loop? Or is it just another inconsistent Python bullshit where until Python 3.8 you couldn't use "continue" inside the "finally:" block (but you could always use "break", even though it does essentially the same thing, just branching to a different point).

Time for some clear readable code.

int a = l;
   if ( O == l )
     a = O1;
   else
     l = 01;

Nailed it.

Modularise your code. It makes it very readable.

I (don't) like how some people say "If your code needs comments, your code is probably ugly and should be rewritten".
Well, asshats. You have never considered complex calculations/functions or "temporary" workarounds, right?
Sometimes, you have to do it in a not-very-readable way for efficiency. There is no way around that in that case, and comments that either explain the code below or provide alternative, slower code that's commented really help others understand your code.
If I ever work with you and you don't bother commenting your code at all (or rather use slow code because more efficient code doesn't appeal to your "muh code dun need comments" approach), I will hate you.

that feeling when your (thrice) refactored code executes literally 1000 times faster.

loading excel ranges into vba arrays and process these is much faster than comparing the ranges themselves. also much more readable. please don't throw rocks at me for don't knowing this in advance.

Just because you can do things in one line and throw in ternary operators everywhere, doesn't mean you should.. other people will touch your code. Make it readable instead of making it harder to maintain

Katie, we get it, you know and like Scala. You mention this often.

It doesn't make you superior to everyone else. And it certainly doesn't mean you have to pretend every language is Scala, ignore any language-specific paradigms and conventions, and bastardise every bit of code you write until it's done in the most weirdly Scala-ish functional way possible even when it makes zero sense to do so.

Stick with the conventions of the existing language & codebase you muppet. Yeah, it's boring and won't turn you on, but it's a hell of a lot more readable than a random bastardised mixin in the middle of another existing inheritance hierarchy.

So.... yeah, making a Scratch clone (with more features) is frustrating and super hard.

Major problems include
- Drag&Drop from listbox to usercontrol - stress level : 3/10
- connect blocks when two blocks are close to each other - stress level : 10/10
- generate live code when there was a change in blocks editor - stress level : 9/10
- write a compiler or some interpreter that converts block code to real c# code - stress level : 10/10
- generate output by calling csc.exe - stress level : 1/10
- make code at least readable - stress level : 7/10

Stopid mf fat fingers, worked 2 weeks building a design system and 2 hours ago I accidentally shift deleted the scss folder and lost every fcking file, no git, no backup, no nada,guess what, tried to recover the files with 2 Permanently deleted file recovery softwares and from fcking 20 files, 17 were corrupted and weren’t readable, I and my designer friend use a folder sync app, the fcking app synced the delete and she lost the files aswell, fooockiinggg shieeeet, to my don’t know how where luck I managed to recover the copiled javascript chunck from my vue app that had the css styles embeded in the file, you know where I found the js file? iN ThE fcking cache of google chrome. Today I almost broke down to tears, but nonetheless it was a reeee moment for me.

I get angry every fucking time when I see such method signature:

method(int, int, int, string, string, string, string)

Sounds scary, doesn't it?

Nah. That's the reason our IDEs are so complex. So, I change this and put proper data value/struct class instead, just to make this much readable and understandable for everyone.

And, every time there is a fella that asks this utterly stupid question:

What about performance impact?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa fuckyutitititiigig

And. I. Have. To. Run. Performance. Tests.

Because noone understands performance and computers so I have to prove there is nothing to worry about.

I know when I will go somewhere else I will have to again prove some fuckwit that web applications are so complex already, so adding a new data structure doesn't impact its performance.

!rant, TL;DR at the bottom

Holy fuck, Yesterday, I got absolutely schooled by a literal newbie.
And I mean, NEWBIE newbie, the dude just started a Computer Science degree, and has been learning Java only for a MONTH. He has 0 prior experience with code or anything of the like, and he's somewhat of an Ars(Israel's version of a Gopnik).
So I was helping him with some stuff he didn't understand, and lo and behold his code was probably the most aesthetically pleasing and organized code I have seen in my 8 years of programming(I know 8 is not much, but It's at least above beginner level). The dude's a perfectionist, so I was like, "Okay, very impressive, but makes sense for perfectionism"(I straight up told him: "Damn, I've seen people with years of programming experience who can't learn to write this well, and you do this by default? I envy whoever's going to work with you"), and then I saw the way he writes checks(as in, methods that return a boolean) and I think I came.
The code was:
[First method in the picture]

And I know, it doesn't look as ✨ WOW✨ as I make it sound, but in my personal opinion this both looks much better and is much more readable than what I normally write:
[Second method in the picture]

and whenever there are longer or more complicated checks it makes it look like a simple puzzle that just fits in all the pieces nicely, for example in a rectangle class we had to write an 'isIn' method, this is how I wrote it:
[Third method in the picture]

His way of writing the same thing was:
[Fourth method in the picture]

Which I think is soooooo much better and readable and organized,
It's enough just looking at the short return statement to immediately understand everything that's going on.
"Oh, so it just checks if the SW(South West, i.e. Bottom Left) corner is above and to the right, and if the NE(North East, i.e. Top Right) corner is bellow and to the left"

Point of the story? Some people are just fucking awesome. And sometimes the youngest/most inexperienced people can teach you new tricks.
And to all of you dinosaurs here with like, 20+ years of experience, y'all can still learn even from us stupid ones. If 8 years can get schooled by a 1 month, 20 years can get schooled by a 1 year.
Listen to everyone everybody, never know where you might learn something new.

TL;DR: Got schooled by a local "Gopnik" who only started learning programming a month ago with 0 prior experience with his insane level of organization and readability.

What the fuck happened to laravel docs, what fuckwad thought the only docs across the entire internet that are properly readable, need its shit fucked up and made into borderless, bold fontweight, shit font dogshit.

Place: Microsoft, Visual Studio department

Boss: we need to make beautiful changes, and make the development process more simple and beautiful.

Employee 1: let's arrange error messages to be more readable.

Boss: no, I don't need any details of error, just say there is an error.

Employee: But..

Boss: This is genius, do it now.

Me: 😭

I never thought clean architecture concepts and low complicity, maintainable, readable, robust style of software was going to be such a difficult concept to get across seasoned engineers on my team... You’d think they would understand how their current style isn’t portable, nor reusable, and a pain in the ass to maintain. Compared to what I was proposing.

I even walked them thru one of projects I rewrote.. and the biggest complaint was too many files to maintain.. coming from the guy who literally puts everything in main.c and almost the entire application in the main function....

Arguing with me telling me “main is the application... it’s where all the application code goes... if you don’t put your entire application in main.. then you are doing it wrong.. wtf else would main be for then..”....

Dude ... main is just the default entry point from the linker/startup assembly file... fucken name it bananas it will still work.. it’s just a god damn entry point.

Trying to reiterate to him to stop arrow head programming / enormous nested ifs is unacceptable...

Also trying to explain to him, his code is a good “get it working” first draft system.... but for production it should be refactored for maintainability.

Uggghhhh these “veteran” engineers think because nobody has challenged their ways their style is they proper style.... and don’t understand how their code doesn’t meet certain audit-able standards .

You’d also think the resent software audit would have shed some light..... noooo to them the auditor “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” ... BULLSHIT!

That moment when your senior dev saves all dates in MySQL as a string human readable date

Gotta love kotlin!

@osiris1337 the refactoring is going great
I had a 80 lines long model class with all the getters and setters and Parcelable interface implemented
and all of that converted to kotlin like this

@-psr another reason, small and readable code ^_^

I'm a contractor at a product company and today I had the pleasure of working with some jQuery.

A function needed to be called before another function, hard work right?

So I moved the call to the function 3 rows higher, checked it in, set the task as ready for test and started to look for other tasks.
Within a couple of minutes I get a direct message from another dev, let's call him Steve.
Steve wanted me to set the task to ready for code review instead of test, so I did just that and tried to move on.

Some minute or two later Steve contacts me again:
"It would be great if you'd move the comment so it'd be over the call to the function"

Well, I'm not one of those who likes comments... If you need a comment, it's probably not good/readable code. In some cases sure, it might be a complex block coming up.
Sorry, lost my train of thought.

I answered Steve : "Are you sure, I could just remove it instead?"

(for readability S will be Steve and M will be me)

S: Well, it's always good to have comments
M: In this case I think it will be alright.
S: But it's nice to see what the function is doing.
M: I'll do it if you really want me to.
S: It's better to have the comment than to not have it and needing it.
M: Okay then

The name of the function : LoadOrganizationTree()

And this is the comment :
//Load organization tree

My internship company does not believe in the concept of 'commenting'. They just tell me: "Ahh just write readable code!
Yeah that's cool until I need to read out thousands of lines of javascript without a single comment!

Code languages should stay within their designated file extensions! I'm having to work with SQL in .resx files at the moment! Then there's HTML which is like a skitty little travelling monkey that I've found blundering about in SQL strings before, let alone people trying to sneak it into .js files, which is one reason I chose Angular over React btw (and don't give me that bullshit of separations of concerns vs separation of technologies).

It is mostly trivial to work with separate files across languages and doing so gives you the benefits of that languages support in the text editor or IDE you are using. It becomes easier to work with, the behaviour is predictable and it is formatted in a readable manner, ultimately reducing the potential for mistakes. Stop trying to make me put everything in strings!!

String someStr = "your name";

// but i wanna capitalize it
someStr.capitalize(); // <-- operation has no effect

// ughh, fine 😒
String cappedStr = someStr.capitalise();

// wish I could just do this:
someStr .= capitalize(); // but it throws error 😩

After noticing 4 operations in a single line, I comment a pr stating the line is not simple to read as there are many operations which can be, especially in the eyes of a junior, hard to read.
I proceed to suggest a better solution.

Colleague: “what??? How is this not readable??? Is it [op1], [op2], [op3] or [op4]? 🤷‍♂️”

I kindly explain this person that it’s not about the single operations, but the fact they are all on a line. Inside an object assignment.

Colleague: “you should learn stuff! (4 links to websites giving that snippet of code”

Ah yes, the oldie: “but other people are jumping off a cliff, why don’t WE do it???”

HTML quick maffs
If you want to have a placeholder for native <select> element, just do the following:
<option value="" selected disabled hidden>Choose...</option>

It will make a native placeholder that:
- is accessible and readable by screen reader
- doesn't show up in options list
- allows native validation with "required" attribute (note the empty value attribute in the placeholder option).

It's unfortunate that we don't have it the way we have placeholder in inputs, but this is the next best thing.

My app's privacy policy!

Is anyone here familiar with generating PNG files from MBTiles files?

I've tried multiple libraries but keep ending up with black, non readable, PNG files which is starting to get really fucking annoying.

(Platform is Linux, obviously)

!rant

I figured out a way to make your code readable!

The main idea: make everything into a function. Each function should be small and you should gradually use past functions to build future functions.

Depending on the language and the size of your code you should make your functions with different sizes, but always keep them small.

This function splitting allows for debugging small parts of your code, avoids repetition and abstracts your code, each making it more readable.

Hey, looks like some employee of this hosting company failed to 750 his home directory and 640 the files...
I was SSHing around on our hosting account when I slipped into his home direcory where at least two(!) SSH public keys of his admin account for the server were readable!

Being an honest guy, I had to call them...
It's fixed now.

I have always believed that clean code is readable code, and if your code is readable, then it shouldn't require masses of comments to explain it. However, in the course I am being taught, we are being told that in programming, comments are massively important to help another developer understand your code and what it does. So what is the consensus of the dev community?

Do you feel comments are key, or redundant if your code is written well?

writing a whole god damn function in one single line doesn't make it "one liner" and it DOESN'T make your code better and more readable!!!

I really hate api response variable names like this. I mean why type "targetitemid" when "target_item_id" is so much more readable?

I’m all for writing boolean statements that are readable, quick to grasp the real life case they’re representing and align with the spec rather than being ultra-reduced, but sometimes the spec is written by someone who clearly can’t reduce logic. So when the spec says “if it’s not the case that any of them are false” and you write:
!(!a || !b || !c || !d)
then I think you should try harder. At least put a note against the spec to say “i.e. if they’re all true” and then write the sensible code. Just think of the poor developer that might have to augment your code at a later date and has to follow and intercept that shite.

I really do like Flutter/Dart but I just cannot be the only who thinks that the way to create several nested components/widgets is even close to somewhat readable, what the fu** Google.

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

Ah, his code is looking much readable already!

Fuck pep8 in general. Fuck harder anything to do with line limits. Fuck with a rusty spatula those who tie it into their git precommits or CI tests.

What's that, it's 2018 and even the shittiest walmart-tier computers have 1080p OR BETTER at a 16:9 aspect ratio?

"lol, 80 character line limit."

Eat a bucket of rancid dicks.

Oh, and since we're forcing you to be so economical with your characters, we're going to force four space tabs. Yknow, rather than simple single tab characters, which could mean everyone can set their preferred level of spacing without bloating the code with whitespace.

Because, yknow, it's entirely reasonable to chew up 1/8 of a line because you're editing a function inside a class definition. God Almighty forbid you try to do a for loop inside that function! Fuck you!

"Oh but you can't have two editors or terminals open side by side without that limit!"

BULL FUCKING SHIT. Here's my shitty 1280x1024 display on my shitty computer with two Sublime editors open side by side. You'll notice the break is at 100 characters. You'll notice I don't have to scroll horizontally to do two things at once. You'll notice I even have room for COMMENTS!

If your code standards require you to make your code *less* readable and *less* clear and take up *more* space to accomplish the same tasks, YOUR CODE STANDARDS SUCK!

Enough with this stupid meme. We're not in the 80s anymore and it's high time to start fucking acting like it.

variableName
vs
variable_name
<imho> I prefer the second one, it is definitely more readable </imho>

(I guess the Question category is the best for this)

Do you believe that someone can be a good dev even if they write shit code?

I personally do, if that person acknowledges the fact that their code is shit, wants to improve it, is humble, is always in the search for constructive, etc as in to make their code better and more readable, I'd think they are a pretty good dev.

We have this one professor in a mathematics course.
He sits there having no plan of what he's doing. He literally opens his python Jupiterbook with latex enabled, writes a complex equation and tries to solve it in 10 minutes. Makes mistakes every few steps and deletes his formatted equation that isn't even interpreted yet (we see the cdot etc. instead of * which makes it even harder to read). Every few minutes some student corrects him and he deletes it again.

Why can't you just think first and then write and try to teach us?
Use as much time as you want as long as you don't have to keep reverting back the humanly unreadable latex equation.

Hell, you are also allowed to use a basic pen and paper. Trust me, that shit is more readable, even if you have a bad handwriting, than your squeezed in complex untranslated latex equation in Jupiterbook.

Btw. he also streams with no zooming in I might add.

Am I supposed to trying to read your small as shit, focus on what you're teaching while you keep making mistakes or write it down on paper and practice the given tasks?

On top of that, he records the zoom conference but he doesn't share it anywhere on the college forum so that people who have missed it can download it and rewatch it.

Everything he does makes no sense. How did he become a mathematics professor with a PhD?

So technical interview today but woke up (6am) and started thinking about it and it led to this rant about algorithms. This is probably going into a Medium post if I ever get around to finishing it but sort of just wanted to share the rant that literally just went off in my mind.

*The problem with Algorithms Technical Interviews Is They don't test Real skills*

Real world problems are complex and often cross domain combining experience in multiple areas. Often the best way is not obvious unless you're a polymath and familiar with different areas, paradigms, designs. And intuitively can understand, reason, and combine them.

I don't think this is something a specific algorithm problem is designed to show. And the problem is the optimal solution to some of these and to algorithm design itself is that unless you train for it or are an algorithm designer (practice and experience), you can only brute force it in the amount of time given.

And quite frankly the algorithms I think we rely on daily weren't thought of in 30 minutes. The designers did this stuff for a living, thought about these problems for days and several iterations… at least. A lot were mathematicians. The matrix algorithm that had a Big O of 7N required a flash of insight that only someone constantly looking and thinking about the equations could see.

TBA
-system design
-clean readable coding practices
...

TLDR: I could probably go on and on about this stuff for hours jumping from item/example/area to the next and back again... But I don't think you can test these (~20) years of experience in a 1 hr technical interview focused on algorithms...

Tried to reply to @Fast-Nop who had replied to someone wondering if C would be a good first language.

IMHO C should have been put to sleep ages ago. A few years ago I downloaded the latest, greatest C Standard. For a language billed as small and simple (by many) it was over 800 pages long. Still there's a lot that's unspecified like order of evaluation of function arguments. Int etc is implementation dependent. And error handling, let's not go there. The macro assembler throws away all the semantics leaving behind a cryptic value. It's a complex language due to the innumerable interactions possible.

It's been called assembly language for the PDP-11 minicomputer. Recently learned that even the VAX-1 was built from SSI chips like the 4-bit 74181 ALU. The VAX.

Anyway I had several excellent books on programming style written by Henry Ledgard. He despaired of making C look readable. I commend his books which are so old that the code is UPPERCASE A lot of he wrote had to do with program design, naming things, writing good comments and that the visual shape of a program assists mental clarity.

It's a constant battle of getting the code finished, and having it look readable. It's so easy to fall into the downward spiral of bad coding.

My insta story: Hey geeks, I started a new project. It will be the AI code human readable maker and simplifier. Coding started,will be up soon..
Project progress:

How do you debate the "it's more complex in my opinion" statement?

So, some months ago I was looking at some code which has stuff as 300 lines of code function(s) and I could feel the bad smell irl...

I analyze it a bit and there is a lot of stuff which is misplaced, repeated or unsafe.
I first re-arrange it and remove redundancy, then break it down in about five functions (plus a caller), all is now readable and assignIcon k(made-up name) only assigns an icon, it doesn't also send a rocket in space.

But then I put the code in review and the previous author of the code says that it's now unreadable, because s/he has to look as multiple functions. I counter by showing how s/he does not need to read 300 lines of code to find a bug, but approximately 60, and I point at how misleading having an `assignIcon` function which also sends rockets in space is.
The counter? "But it looks confusing to have smaller functions, revert it."

How would you debate that? I am shy and hate myself a lot, so I have issues debating good points, but I am really really sure a lot of bugs I encountered were due to stuff like this so I would like to be able to explain my point in a more efficient way, for future teams.

Finally I was able to look into css grids in more detail and gotta say it's impressive, also "grid-template-areas" made me chuckle for a bit, at how unusual and easy you can define layouts (even compatible with media queries!), which are also heavily obvious and readable, reminds me of the old games where characters were just symbols.

We have a new hire, and he doesn't know much so he is receptive when given feedback on better ways to handle a situation...Or at least, he appears that way. Until the next time and he didn't listen at all.

Today I'm working on the front end to match his API calls. I ask him about a list of options for one of the fields, as he didn't provide that info initially. No worries, there was a lot, easy to miss. He responds with a list of ~100 options, which he copied and pasted from, I'm assuming, their documentation. I tell him that's too many options to hard code, as there is an easy chance to have an error or for there to be one added or deleted, and ask if there is an API endpoint to get the list.

He then asks if I need the key and value, or just key. I tell him if he needs the value(human readable) then he can send me just the value, otherwise both. He says he just needs the key, so I let him know that I need both then, as the value is human readable. He says okay.

He proceeds to make the endpoint, I test it. Then I look at the code he wrote. Not only did he not send me both, he just sent the keys, but he hard coded all 100 keys as opposed to making the call to the external API.

I'm curious..

When does programming suck for you, and when is it fun?

Like I hate programming, when I run into an obscure use case that opens up some serious errors with my some, or gasp, all, of my architecture and forces me to rethink everything - especially DB design, ugh.

I love programming when my architecture and DB design create naturally readable code and everything falls into place and I feel like a genius.

I guess, in short.... plan before you code?

And then, plan again.

But don't plan too much.

The love/hate of my programming life summed up right there I think.

How about you?

It is easy to believe something is over-engineered as a junior. You open a solution and get slapped in the face with a wet fish of many classes, with strange names, doing very little, with everything coming together in ways you don't understand.

My advice is to learn about design patterns, clean code, clean architecture, and model driven design. Until that point I don't think you can make such a distinction. And indeed once knowledgeable of patterns and techniques as well as the domain, the same solution can look obvious, elegant and readable.

In a field where everyone is saying 'dont over-engineer', one must be able to tell if something is actually bad, or just uses techniques you don't recognise.

Telling your senior you think something is over done just because you don't understand it is not good. First learn techniques, understand the code, then form opinions that are at least relevant then.

From someone who committed that crime.

Why do people who cannot write specs still write specs? There are guys who just cannot produce anything human readable.
- Don't list 50 things in the same sentence separated with semicolon. Don't you have list bullets in your Word?? Or table, anyone??
- Now that you managed to add a table, don't write a novel into the cells. Especially now that you have decided to use 30pt font size and 3cm wide columns.
- If it's not an equation, don't use parenthesis. Why? Since they (and this is just my opinion (someone else might think otherwise)) are a little bit (or a lot, depending on the reader(s)) annoying (or otherwise irritating) since they (the parenthesis) tend to make the text (of any kind) very difficult (hard) to read especially (there can be other reasons) when you (or someone else in the company) have decided to write reaaaally long and complex sentences which add no information but make the reader go back and forth of the text trying (and sometimes not succeeding) to make any sense out of it.
- Always remember to use cross-reference number like [1] but don't tell what it is referring to. Special bonus will be awarded, if the link is broken!
- Save space and time by not explaining things that you can just refer to. Just add vague "read from [1], [2] and [3] for info about this." And then expect the reader to go through thousands of pages of boring jargon.

And oh yeah, please ask comments in the review session and then ignore all of them, since "well technically all the information was in the spec". You just need to be Sherloc Holmes to connect the dots.

const abc: string = 'Hi';

Can we take a moment to appreciate how retarded it is that TSlint throws a warning here that the string type is inferred and unnecessary.

I want to put the type there because it looks more readable. Code looks better if every variable has a type, irrespective of whether it's a constant. I know the fucking type is inferred you braggart linter bitch. What the fuck does it expect? A fucking award because it inferred that a string constant is of the fucking type string? How the ever loving fuck does that warrant a squiggly ass yellow warning line, reminiscent of that smartass 10 year old in class who has to yell out every answer when the teacher never asked a question.

That moment when, after you've spent days trying to refactor your code to be clean and readable, you look at what you've made and you honestly feel like you actually made things worse than before.

Goddamit I hate it when services advertise how they are about security and then deny me using random readable words with hyphens as passwords.

Recently, I had to make a minor modification to some Node.js code a coworker wrote a year ago which buffers stringified JSON into Kinesis. I just needed to add a new key to the input object, it took minutes to make the change, but hours to make sense out the absolute trash spaghetti code this guy wrote. After spending half a day trying to make his code readable, I just got so pissed off. I replaced his 15 files/+1,500 lines of uncommented code, filled with classes, factory functions, poorly named functions and vars, and so, so many spelling mistakes.

We now have a single, well commented, 300 line file that does the same thing.

Get that shit code out of here.

The primary concept of reactive programming is great. The idea that things just naturally re-run when anything they rely on is changed is amazing. Really, I think it's the next step in programming language development and within a decade or two at least one of the top 5 programming languages will be built entirely on this principle.
BUT
Expecting every dependency to be used unconditionally is stupid. Code that checks everything it might need all the time even if a decision can be made from much less information is simply bad, inefficient code. If you want to build a list of dependencies automatically, you have to parse the source.
And I really hate that there are TONS of languages that either make the AST readable at runtime or ship with a very powerful preprocessor that could be used to analyse expressions and build dependency lists, but by its sheer popularity the language we're trying to knead into something it was never and still isn't meant to be is JavaScript.

I found it rather convinient to take a paperbook and a pen and wirte down the tasks, i have to do maybe with subtasks and add checkboxes.
Then the next day, i mark the tasks i finished and take over the jobs i didn't finish for the next period.
And i take time for writing nicely to make my handwriting more readable.
Therefire i have my slacking(writing nicely), i have my structure by having structured tasks and subtasks and i have my reward in checking the boxes.
Bonus points for getting a feeling, how much i can archieve in one day.

RANT

We use Exact for our time sheets/hour tracking. How it's supposed to work:
-Manager plans my hours in Exact.
- I work those hours on the given projects
== All fine till here ==
But then ... there is a button (don't know the correct translation) "realise" which books the planned hours for me. So I don't have to do it manually.

This simply didn't work!! No one seem to know why not... Not even the guys at Exact.

Since it's web based I opened the developers window and looked for the call behind the button. You would think it would be at least an Ajax call thingy (I'm not completely into JS)
Turns out it's a readable JS function!

It doesn't stop there... It first makes all calculations on what to display, at last, at the fucking end, it checks a setting whether to proceed the booking or not!!!!

So I found and switched the setting and tried the button again.... Now it fucking works...

No fucking way I am going to tell Exact what the problem is 😫

I've created a code review for merging someone else's code, coz they were signed off sick for the last month.

They're making comments about how it's wrong.

It's code they wrote, but restructured to be more readable.

They wrote incorrect code that was just so illegible they didn't realise.

How do I explain this diplomatically?

Thank God for Ctrl+Alt+L in PHPStorm...one guy from our company seemed to like this code style once upon a time:

if ($variable > 0)

{

// stuff

}

else

{

// other stuff

}

Why is school such a bullfuck, we've learned SQL basics and I've used SQL a little so I thought I won't have a problem. WELL FUCKING HELL WAS I WRONG. Joining 4 tables together with inner join WTF who the fuck uses that, why the fuck do I need to know this, WHY THE FUCK IN A TEST WHEN WE HAVEN'T LEARNED SUCH BULLSHIT. Well how about adding a foreign key to a table that doesnt need one. Well ok have fun with a key that does absolutely nothing and on top of all those convoluted tasks the texts are a mess, they give unnecessary information with grammar of a 9 year old and the pictures are not even readable. They are fucking hieroglyphs.
Fuck school.
Gonna do it by myself at the end anyway.
Fuck everything.

At my last gig, part of our business process was to generate a unique human-readable ID that could tie an individual to our product and service. Well, we had a few rather superstitious, paranoid and vocal customers who felt 'uneasy' when they received their unique ID with 666 in it.

So after having a good laugh and roll on the floor, I got to write an exorciseUniqueId() method that compelled the evil numbers to stop possessing those innocent IDs!

What the absolute fuck is this!
Fucking bash needs to get its shit together with its fucking strings.
I don't fucking know why str1 + var2 = var2tr1
Like who designed this fucking bullshit!

I've spent the past 8 hours today counting all my ' and " and making sure everything is getting passed correctly.

And how do you even google this shit anyways!

And why the fuck is the official suggestion from the bash FAQ to load everything into an array and to call it with "${ARRAY[@]}"

WHO THE FUCK DECIDED THAT WAS READABLE!!

AUGH!!!

In case anyone was wondering. It didn't work anyways.

I think I'm done for today... I can't anymore...

for anyone wondering. This is bash getting executed by nodejs with execSync()
and those tokens are temporary and only exist on my dev machine. Sorry for getting your hopes up.

I've been offline from devrant for a while now but damn, I need to vent this shit

One of my colleagues can't describe tickets well enough, so I often have to speak to my colleague about it what he/she ments with their description (usually the ticket description is one line… that's all)

But yesterday the ticket was quite ok, I got were he/she was going for

Conveniently my colleague walked by at the end of yesterday and asked me how it was going

I responded quite energetic 'quite well, ticket is almost done'

And when I showed my colleague the result he/she said, well I got some feedback this morning, and we need to move X to Y with Z data

But you don't get the full story, this project exists of a very old abandoned framework (2013). Hacked together to work for more than one customer (but still copied over to run standalone) with the last year of development being focused on fast results (no time given to workout bugs or refactoring for cleaner/readable code)

So now I have to (on a feature that already took me 3 days to build) remove roughly 25% of the code and hacks, and hack a solution together..

This shit is demotivating as fuck...

I'm curious, what was the most ridiculously otherworldly, the least understandable, eye-opening code you have every seen?

BUT, I mean that in a good way. And what did you learn from it?

For me personally, I would probably say some of the c++ stdlib implementations. Just totally not English in some places. I mean seriously, sometimes asm is more readable than c++

if (a == 0 && b == 0) {}

or

if (a + b == 0) {}

What do you think is more readable? Is there any (performance) difference in the compiled programme?

For a and b >= 0.

An app that translates those dreaded error messages into succinct and human readable English, like: you missed a semi on line 23.

Working on Ruby on Rails for first time..
Blogs mention it's more human readable..
I guess I feel like semicolons, args and braces to be more readable...

PHP Websites configuration data stored in _hidden/config.inc

Yep, that .inc extension made it world readable.

Just because OO exists, it's not mandatory.

Some code would be 10(+) times simpler, more readable and more maintainable without it.

Of course, the variable for fields should be called "flds", those 2 bytes saved will help us so much! For a small price of this shit being not really readable anymore. Is it "floods"? "fleeds"?

C++99, C++03, C++11 and C++14

I love when your design finally ends up working, looks good and it's running as fast as Usain Bolt, but why the hell does OOP has to be so ugly and clunky in C++? Constructors and copy constructors designs are barf inducing. Yes I am trying to make it as readable and neat as possible but it still looks like shit overall. And related compiler errors are almost always retarded or unhelpful even though I'm used to it now.

I know you will tell me "why are you using those old ass versions?". Well unfortunately in embedded you are stuck with old crap until some envoy of the gods finally up the standards... or if I do it myself for a specific platform.

Whyyyyyyyyyy are you making typedefs for a type that you only need once

Just leave the array<uint32, 20> there
It's actually less readable to typedef it

What do you consider the best method for long-term cold data storage? And why?

I was looking at some magnetic tapes, but the degradation of magnetic charge is worrying me. Lose a single bit and you're fucked.

Dvds - not sure, some of my old ones are no longer readable. Not sure why tho, they had been enclosed in a dark, room-temp place all the time

hdds -- still magnetic.

Ssds? Idk

...?

When I was in school I was in a vocational school and my program was a Computer Service and Networking class and that’s what it taught it’s pretty self explanatory. BUT we also did some programming.

I was the only one interested in programming really considering everyone else loved the hardware. But when they would ask for help it was awful.

The book we used didn’t format the python properly on the page so you can’t really tell if there’s an indent if you dont know python well (they didn’t) which is okay.

But what isn’t okay is asking me for help and SENDING ME A FUCKING VIDEO OF THE COde LIKE FUCKING WHAT THE HELL MAN THAT SHIT ISNT EVEN READABLE AND YOUR HAND IS SHAKING LIKE YOURE HAVING A STROKE AT LEAST SEND ME THE CODE OR WORST CASE A PICTURE.

This happened more than once. 😤

Work rant :

I once had a code review and remembered I forgot to comment my code and said sorry I forgot to comment it out.

The reply I got?
Don't worry, here we say your code should be readable enough and no comments are required.

Im still amazed, like... Even if the code is readable, fuck this I need a tl;Dr comment for the long ass fucking code... What the fuck

Always make your code readable before you stop working on it.
Not just for other people to learn from but also for yourself.

Context: just lost about 3 months of progress because everytime I look at this file I feel like starting over...

Dear devs, making your software "work" is the least thing you do as a dev. Write tests, write readable, maintainable, extensible code, and ensure that your code runs sufficiently fast and efficiently. Also consider using the right tech for your use case and nature the of the software. It's your job to ensure that your software runs efficiently and effectively, and stop saying "it works" and end there. God forbid you use bubblesort and say it works or do some dumb **** like that.

!rant
All computers are great and not all people are compilers
please use a Semicolon for God's sake
Though coding is competence
I believe in readable code

Just a quick rant on JavaScript,
So there’s a lot of people hating javascript, and while not a long time ago i was part of them, but I changed my opinion a little.

I think JavaScript is a great way to deal with website programming as it is quick and efficient, but I would not say to program directly on it, use a js-compilable language (CoffeScript, TypeScript, Kotlin(I think), etc.), but then you might say: “Well, no need for js then, compile it in byte code”. That would break the point of how I see web design/dev. The main intent behind webpages is to have an easy and fast way to send code to other computers to render them, that’s why it is interpreted: “Easy to send” and “*All* computers can handle it” with the proper browser. You need to be able to change the way the website is rendered and/or works sometimes, for diverse reasons like copy/pasting data, make it render properly or use plugins/add-ons to change that code to suit your needs.

I think js should be kept as a “readable byte-code”, so that means: {

Keep comments when compiling the js-compilable code,

Add standardized machine-readable comments that will indicate to smart code viewers how to show a particular thing (Like have a higher-end function compiled in js shown as a minimized code with explanations of the function)

Keep it nicely formated and don’t obfuscate (coz that’s annoying)

Etc.
}

So you bypass the quirks and all that pesky js stuff, while keeping it’s good sides.

-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Part 2:

Web design for non-web:

Ok so things like node.js, electron, react-native and all that stuff; I won’t say they’re bad but...

Why we have this is because web designers wanted to make desktop apps and were like “Hey! Making web pages is easy! Let’s port it to desktop”, the problem is: Web technologies were made to work on a restricted canvas, aka a browser. It’s good on web for reasons mention earlier and more. But it’s not on desktop! You’re trying to push it outside of those boundaries. It’s difficult to make it break that canvas and go outside, make something that really works! For social media clients and that kind of stuff that you want to make a little more inclusive, yes! it’s a great idea (hello devrantron ;), but not if it’s an exact same copy of the website, just use the website. But for things that are supposed to really make use of YOUR computer; no!

I see those PWA (progressive webapps aka mobile app, but it’s an offline website”), I stand for the same positions, social media and those sort of things: yes, great idea! Games? 🤢.

I have way more to say but I have difficulties to remember them while reading, so feel free to comment your thoughts

Lol, “just a quick rant”

Leaving out comments assuming your code is readable enough. Code != English

Trying out pure functional programming in javascript. First few weeks: wow, this is so fresh, oop can die, etc. Now: this isn't readable at all! 😐

Title: The problem with "good enough" code

Body:

I'm a software developer, and I've seen my fair share of "good enough" code. You know the kind of code I'm talking about: it works, but it's not pretty, and it's not very maintainable.

The problem with "good enough" code is that it's a slippery slope. Once you start writing "good enough" code, it's easy to fall into the trap of always taking the easy way out.

Before you know it, your code is a mess of hacks and workarounds. It's hard to understand, it's hard to maintain, and it's a nightmare to debug.

I've seen projects go down in flames because of "good enough" code. The code was so bad that it was impossible to fix, and the project had to be scrapped.

I'm not saying that you should never write "good enough" code. Sometimes, you just need to get something working, and you don't have the time or resources to do it perfectly.

But if you're going to write "good enough" code, you need to be aware of the risks. And you need to make sure that you're only writing "good enough" code for a short period of time.

Once you have a working prototype, you need to start refactoring your code and making it better. You need to make it more readable, more maintainable, and more testable.

If you don't, you'll eventually regret it. Your code will become a liability, and it will hold you back.

So next time you're tempted to write "good enough" code, think twice. It might save you some time in the short term, but it will cost you in the long run.

Use that Tab button. It's there for a reason. If you are too lazy to use it then use an IDE that formats the code.
Also learn to comment your code wherever needed and in English. If you don't know where it's needed, Google is your friend if not your senior.

I'm writing a ML course that explains concepts by going through/getting the reader to write simple implementations of concepts. I've written a decision tree in 250 lines of code (including plotting it), that is 100 times faster than another (hilariously bad) attempt at a simple decision tree, and it's far more readable than anything else I've seen.

I'm having a good day.

That cringeworthy moment when you end up updating code you wrote two years ago as an amateur. Sigh, massive OCD attack settling in, I have a feeling I'm going to put in a few extra hours just so I can turn this blob of sticky code into something decent/readable.

I get really angry when my friend (has only ever taken a web design class in high school that taught only basic html) tries to preach to me that you shouldn't have to worry about writing readable code along with documenting it so long as it works the way you want it to.

Well this is the thing. I have been starting to replace a lot of my shit with Golang. I think it is a great language because of one small fact: it is a boring language.

With this I don't mean that it is not incredibly fun to use. It is and honestly I feel that a lot of the concepts that I had from C passed quite nicely with some additions. The language does not do anything special and there is no elegant code. It works in a very procedural fashion without taking into consideration any of the snazzy things found in JS, Python, c# etc etc. Interfaces and struct make sense to me, way more than oop does in other languages. I don't need generics with the use of interface parameters and I have hadly found a situation in which I have to strive too far away from the way things are done with Go to be happy with it, then again my projects are not hard or by any means groundbreaking (most of them deal with logistics or content management and a couple of financial apps that I am rewriting in Go from work)

The outcome is fast and easy to read since idiomatic go is for the most part very readable(no people...single letter variable names are by no means a standard and they should feel ashamed from it)

I miss the idea of a framework, but not so much and the docs and internal code for Go is just way top inviting. I believe the code to be readable enough than anyone that has gotten used to the syntax and ideas of the language can just jump in and start learning. This is the first language that I have learnt from studying the code as it is inside of the standard lib, the same I cannot say for any other language or framework.

Also, it play beautifully nice with vs code.

I dunno man, I feel that I am doing something wrong. I have projects built in Node, php, python, ruby and spring java as well as .net core and I still find Golang way more appealing simply because it goes harder than Python with "one preferred way" to do things.

The lang does not make me feel like a pro, i certainly develop in it at pro speeds, but it was made with beginners in mind to built fast and concurrent apps, with the most minimal syntax possible.

I guess my gripe with it is that it gets shunned from this, saying that it ignored years of lang research to make it as dumbed down as possible. Which it did, lack of generics amongst other things certainly make it seem like, but I will not say that it was poorly designed. Not at all, I believe it is a testament of amazing engineering. To be able to create such a simple yet amazingly powerful language.

Wish there were more to it. Wish there was a nice gui lib or a ml framework comparable to the ones offered by python and java. But I guess such things will come with time.

I feel stupid with this language.

And that is fine.

Readable code?
Fuck that

A prototype being used as production code written in procedural PHP with the code drawn using echo and MySQL (not MySQLi) all mixed together and the configuration with world readable database stored as config.inc.
All backed by a database with no foreign keys or data integrity of any kind.

I felt so good after revisiting a project and everything runs ok
Code readable
Managed to pick off where I left off and fixed some existing bugs
Added new features and uploaded the update

According to people here, ternary operators. I don't care what I'm doing, if I can use a ternary operator instead of an if, get ready for it!
I guess implicit brackets on conditionals and for loops if it's a single line. Anything that saves me typing boilerplate, but it's still readable, I'm gonna do it.

I always do reformatting my code to keep it clean and readable, so I have a reflex of doing it a lot of time.

Even on a file with thousand of lines with several persons working on it

but I hate to see that in my changes, 95% of my changes are random tabs that my auto reformatting erases.

My biggest influence on coding style is working with other people's code. I know the temptation to write "clever" code and I've been (and probably still occasionally am) guilty of it myself, but it's not until you have to debug someones oneliner iterator which has !(i-j) as the stop condition that you start to appreciate dumb, boring, obvious code.

If having a series of if checks in a long list makes it readable, keep it that way. If it makes it more readable to rewrite it into a nested switchcase with a couple of ternary bits, go ahead. Just don't spend half a day wrapping it up into two layers of abstraction that will require an onboarding process for the rest of the team.

I hate people ranting about “Uhh thats not responsive I sent a screen how I imagined it.“

Open Screen, 1918x703 px WIDE.

Explained for an hour that thats not fucking responsive. Nobody could see or read that even if I were to implement. Responsive fucking means text breaks BELOW the damn pictures to make it readable. I will never fit that on an iphone or something unless he pays extra so i can perform dark magic to force vertical view on some devices and put 100 alert functions that the device is not supported by the site.

Im so mad fuck him and fuck me

I hate it when someone says 'syntactic sugar' and on the other hand wants code to be readable. For me it seems that this are wheels which chain together.

Meetings.

Too many meetings.

"Why do you explain...." 10kv electrical shock.

Explanation so everyone has the same knowledge.

"But CD ES process of LCE..." Water. From the emergency hose. In the face.

For fucks sake, we are using speech in a meeting so stop using motherfucking abbreviations you shit hole.

"We had bugs". Taking an hot iron and shoving it somewhere nice.

Explain - what the fuck are you talking about? What bugs? Tickets? Documentation? Implications of the bugs? Hate. Much hate.

Um. I don't know. Maybe. But if.

Thumb wrenches.

Please, stop wasting time, if it's non important, a " No " doesn't hurt....

Let me show you. (4k Monitor, 10 px font, bright neon colors, IDE looks like LSD trip in bad).

Crucification.

If you present stuff, good - but for christs sake, shove your motherfucking shitty IDE setting in your own arse and turn on presentation mode with neutral colors - bright or dark mode, I don't care, but readable without danger of seizure.

I can't stream my monitor right now because of "bla" "blabla" (some private shit that has ZERO to do with work).

I'll need some oxy if this goes on.

Why do people hate jQuery so much? 30KB is basically nothing in times of modern bandwidth and for me CSS selectors are mich more readable than the Vanilla JS functions.
Im not judging and would be happy if someone explains it to me or shows better alternatives.

My team lead thinks using a double Not operator in javascript is too confusing and not readable.

Opinions?

Just as an extension of last rant to explain how much fun it is to keep up with Apple's security through obscurity bullshit.
AFAIK this full disk access (FDA) feature was touted to protect a user's data on macOS. Programs that want to access those files need to request the user's permissions to do so. Now to the fun part: Apple is not providing any API. A staff member suggested, that you should only try to access the files your app needs and if you can't as for the user's allowance. One should not use some fixed files and try to access them, because their locations might change, as well as their (UNIX file) access rights (ACL), or if they fall under FDA. Not to speak about the other security features that might hinder you accessing files (you might be sandboxed, or the files might be subject to SIP/rootless).
Honestly, you should be starting to take drugs, if you want to stay sane. I mean UNIX ACL are weird enough: e.g. you can make a directory only readable for root such that a user cannot list the files inside, but you can place files inside that the user can read (if she knows about their existence). On macOS you'll never know. You may have all the rights to access a file,.. but Apple will only give you the finger.
As they always do to us developers.

After opening game files for Ragnarok Online and saw the quest files are human readable (lua or other scripting language). Had some Flash workshops to confirm my interest.
Later in college, I make games for every lecture projects (with my friends). Now our game studio is 7 years old.

The only really influential product Microsoft ever created is Verdana. Yes, the typeface.

It was the first typeface designed to be displayed on a screen rather than in print. Before that, there only were monospaced typefaces like we saw in terminal, or digitized typefaces like Helvetica Neue.

More than that, its looks were partly generated by an algorithm, hence the odd, alien looks. But because of it, Verdana works amazingly good in small labels. The 8pt Verdana is more readable than 10pt Helvetica.

I still use Verdana in all of my projects, religiously.

All the other Microsoft products: Windows, Xbox, Surface, Office, Azure, all that stuff — is mere garbage compared to the influence Verdana made on how our interfaces look now.

dev: ugh we need to set and implement coding standards

same dev: no I don't need to follow what you just said, it's already clean and readable (it's not)

Today I‘ve been investigating a freeze in our app. It took me many hours to narrow it down to the textfield validation regex. And it turned out to be a "catastrophic backtracking" issue.
I‘m a regex noob so I don‘t have a clue how it occurs exactly. But I‘m a bit perplexed about what a seemingly innocent regex can cause.

For me it became another argument against regex now.
I‘ve rewritten the regex into readable code and the freeze is gone.

I could try to fix the regex but… nah. The code is better anyway.

!!rant

Today I wanted to finish a feature in some Python code I. Working on instead I scope creeped myself a bunch times adding "other cool features" and refactoring working and readable code that didn't need refactoring. Oh and learning about random things on SO and finally giving up on making any more progress for the day and reading devrant.

ADHD Self:"Coding is love, coding is life. Plus I'm getting paid."

....

Responsible self: "Wait no, go home sleep, spend time with your wife"

Remembering self:" she's out with friends"

Responsible self: "ah, carry on, she's probably spending more money than you're making"

My company ex-IT Maintainer, left a long automation script in c++, bit of python 2, and bash for our server which developed long before i went to junior high school. and now, the system is outdated, and have a compability problems. so i got task to give it a fix.

when i opened the source code up. i was like; holy shit who the hell write a code especially c++ all aligned to the left, Yes All of it, not a single line are indented. but in the other side the code seems maintainable, and after autoformat, autoindent and couple of fix later, it was readable. I am just wondering who the hell in the world write a code with a style like that ???? i knew he was aware of code style and indentation since he wrote couple of python scripts. Unbelievable.

sadly i cannot show you the pict cuz of company things.

I am working in a cool company where during our coding principles conversation , I was giving a walkthrough of my code. I accepted some valid criticism. Shit hit the fan, when my I tried to explain it to them why I have written modules and the necessity of them in this application. So instead of writing several functions , I have created a common module for handling these tasks . After a lengthy argument , I am told that I should write understandable and lengthy code instead of complex and small one. This is what I think so too, that code should be readable by human but at some point , one also has to look decide if this practice is suitable for every carse or not. Man this is fucking killin me. Then I am also told that to rewrite the code and write it in such a way that's naive and easy to understand

For all things, for all men, that a man compliments a thing does not imply that this man at least attempts to understand this thing. However, for all men, that a man criticises a thing implies that this man at least attempts to understand this thing.

For all computer programs, that a computer program is terrible implies that scrapping the current implementation of this computer program and beginning anew may be the best method of fixing this computer program.

With few exceptions, for all programming languages $l$, given sufficient effort, $l$ source code can be human-readable.

The UNIX philosophy never became outdated.

For all computer programs $p$, $p$ should be written sufficiently well that the author of $p$ can be prideful of $p$.

For all computer programs $p$, a specification for $p$ should be written before $p$ is created.

For all good computer programs, a good computer program can run on terrible hardware.

Every clock cycle is valuable.

Benefits of using Strings for Boolean intended logic?

I'll go first

easily implement cases before finally checking if true

generateUsername: { type: String }

if(generateUsername == 'humanReadable'){
// generate a username in a human readable format AKA yoDudeImRainbow
} else if(generateUsername == 'hash'){
// generate a username by using a random hash
} else if(generateUsername){
// generate a username by using a random hash
}

Classmate: I'm done with this

I read his code

Me: Good. But could you make that a little bit more.. readable?

Classmate: Eh..what?

Me: Or use one or two lists less.. and the naming

Classmate: But I need them all!

It's a square around a coordinate within given borders, not rocket science.

([]+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!![]+!![]]+(+{}+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+(![]+[]+[][[]])[+!![]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!![]+!![]]+(+{}+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+([]+{})[+!![]+[+!![]]]+(![]+[])[+!![]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!![]+!![]]+(+{}+[]+ +!![]/+![])[+!![]+[+[]]]+(+{}+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+{})[+!![]]+(+{}+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!![]]+([]+{})[+!![]+[+!![]]]+(![]+[])[+!![]]+([][[]]+[])[!+[]+!![]]+(+{}+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+!![]]+([][[]]+[])[+!![]]+([][[]]+[])[!+[]+!![]]+(+{}+{})[+!![]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+!![]]+([][[]]+[])[!+[]+!![]]+([]+{})[+!![]+[+!![]]]+(!![]+[])[+!![]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!![]+!![]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[+!![]]+([][[]]+[])[+!![]]+([][[]]+[])[!+[]+!![]]

Reading code takes time!

Everytime I read:
"var" or "auto" Add: 10s
- Just use the type

Everytime I read:
if(Expression1 && Expression() ? GetNumber() : 0 > 0) Add: 30s
- Just write two if statements or create two bools the line above.

Everytime I read:
delegate = () => {} Add another 5 minutes of reading time.
- Just write a separate function for it. It helps with searching and understand what it does

Please code like the person that needs to check your code or change it just knows basic coding skills and logics.

I do know all these concepts I just never use them because it makes the code unreadable. hard to follow, mistakes that can happen everywhere. difficult to search.

And it frustrates that I need to read 10 extra lines to understand code flow or hover my mouse in an IDE to figure out what type object it is.

It's properly just me... I just like clean readable code. that is logical and failsafe and strict and deterministic with its behavior