you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (11 children)

What's wrong with this? I don't get it. Perfectly understandable code to me. Can someone explain?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Old programmers shouting at clouds.

    (Old programmer here, I just shout at differently shaped clouds than this one.)

    Edit: I am not sure if the respondents to this comment think I have a horse in this race. I said I don't and that I shout at different clouds. I am just here answering a question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Another old programmer here, and I don't see the issue. C# gets better with every release and the null coalescing assignment operator is very handy. It also exists in JavaScript.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I feel like it boils down to understanding that operator. I'm a TypeScript developer by trade so I had no issue understanding this. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Ruby has it as well:

    a ||= b
    
    # which means
    a = a || b
    # wich is the same as
    a = b if !a
    # which rubyists like to write as
    a = b unless a
    # or as ternary
    a = a ? a : b
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's way too many ways of doing the same thing, yuck.

    But you're saying the idiomatic way is to use unless, rather than the actual operator for this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is basically one of the core ideas of Ruby: that you can read it like a story. Once you are used to reading it as "do X unless Y", you will miss it in other languages. Note that I wrote Y, not Y is true. Because often Y is a statement that has meaning in itself.

    Example:

    # imagine that given_name is some text from user input
    
    # this is of course valid:
    user.name = given_name if !user.is_locked
    
    # but this reads more fluently:
    user.name = given_name unless user.is_locked
    

    Ruby also allows using ? as last character in method names, which is a convention for methods that return either true or false.

    Same goes for ! (the bang operator), that is commonly used to tell developers that there exists a non-bang version of the same method as well. The bang method is often the more strict version (e.g. raises an error instead of returning nil; or having side effects compared to the non-bang version).

    So the above example may be more commonly written like this:

    user.name = given_name unless user.locked?
    

    and the question mark makes you automatically adding is or has while reading: Set the user's name to the given_name unless the user is locked

    Of course this is all by convention and you may also do it different. But that's how most Ruby code is written.

    To stay consistent, lots of projects use RuboCop, which warns you on inconsistency based on your project's settings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    you will miss it in other languages

    I honestly don't like the "unless X" paradigm, because it adds the condition at the end. The ??= operator shows us what will happen much sooner.

    I guess it's a matter of personal taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Looks a lot like more syntax sugar to me, to hide boilerplate code. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can obfuscate the actual meaning of the code for the sake of brevity. What does A ??= B do at a glance, for example?

    It's not exclusive to C# or "corporate" languages either. Rust has a fuckton of syntax sugar that makes it difficult to read.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment