Comment on The Legends is among us

underscores@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• Jankatarch@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  There are two types of programmers.

  // comment1
  if(condition1) {
    // comment2
    if(condition2) {
      // comment3
      if(condition3) {
        printf("hello, world\n");
      }
    }
  }
  

  and

  // comment1
  if(!condition!) {
    return;
  }
  
  // comment2
  if(!condition2) {
    return;
  }
  
  // comment3
  if(!condition3) {
    return;
  }
  
  printf("hello, world\n");
  

  source

  • rothaine@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    if (condition && condition1 && condition2)
    

    source

    • kernelle@0d.gs ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The problem with this in the OP is the first ‘if’ checks if the object exists and the second gets a property of said object only if the original object exists.

      I’m not saying the OP is good code, but chaining them like this would result in exceptions.

      source

      • fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        The language is python and it has short circuiting aka in an and condition, if the first block isn’t fulfilled the second one isn’t tested because it’s unnecessary.

        Same with or and the reverse.

        source
      • rothaine@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Not in a language with short circuiting.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    // comment
    if(x < 10) {
      // comment1
      if(x < 20) {
        // comment2
        if(x < 30) {
          printf("hello, world\\n");
        }
      }
    }
    

    source

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      “Yeah x might be less than 10 but just in case check if it’s less than 30.”

      source
    • underscores@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      This is the cursed case when you case the forbidden scroll of the ancients: switch (true) { }

      source
  • veganpizza69@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Add the else branches to the nested version and log the failed conditions (to make it more obvious).

    source
  • undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I’m so the latter. The former drives me fucking crazy.

    source
  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    if(!condition) {  return;}: If(!condition1) {return;}; if(!condition2) {return;}; 
    

    source
• Tja@programming.dev ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Not only nested ifs. It’s not even correct (doesn’t check for activities existing). And it’s not even pythonic (ask for forgiveness, not for permission). Just access the thing, catch the exception and be done with it.

  source
• REDACTED@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but the script works faster with nested IFs since if it fails at the first one, it won’t bother reading next ones, unless you kill/return from function.

  All in all, this feels like readibility argument, not correctness or efficienty argument

  source