|
I think the guy either "optimized' his code, or obfuscated it. I can't make out head nor tails of what the code does. I'm actually pissed off enough about it to try to find something else.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, looks like it may have passed through a JavaScript minifier (kinda like how jQuery has a commented version and another version that is minified).
|
|
|
|
|
That there's Friday Code. Run while you still can...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often *students*, for heaven's sake. -- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
It's not that bad if you format it properly
return
(aW == null) ? a0 === "!="
: a0 === "=" ? a2 === aX
: a0 === "*=" ? a2.indexOf(aX) >= 0
: a0 === "~=" ? (" " + a2 + " ").indexOf(aX) >= 0
: !aX ? a2 && aW !== false
: a0 === "!=" ? a2 !== aX
: a0 === "^=" ? a2.indexOf(aX) === 0
: a0 === "$=" ? a2.substr(a2.length - aX.length) === aX
: a0 === "|=" ? a2 === aX || a2.substr(0, aX.length + 1) === aX + "-"
: false;
Basically it boils down to this
return the result of...
if condition then this
else condition then this
else condition then this
...
else this
|
|
|
|
|
Yuck is this for work or for personal use?
Craigslist Troll: litaly@comcast.net
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. "
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Personal use...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Either way... I'm glad I'm not maintaining that guy's stuff.
Personal or Professional, a good dev is not going to cut corners in the quality of their code in either.
Or am I the only anal retentive coder out there.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Bloody hell! this really needs a filter/translator to be understood or may take ages to be refined!!  
|
|
|
|
|
If you work your head around inline IFs you'll find them really useful. I use them in C# all the time!!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree -- they help promote a nice functional style. But this example is over the top.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying I don't understand this code. I'm saying this code is ridiculous. And it's called a ternary comparison, not "nested if's".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
If I read this correctly and my understanding of JavaScript precedence is correct, I think this is an ugly version of a big else-if statement. Something like this:
if (aw == null) {
return a0 === "!=";
} else if (a0 === "=") {
return a2 === aX;
} else if (a0 === "*=") {
return a2.indexOf(aX) >= 0;
} else if (a0 === "~=") {
return (" " + a2 + " ").indexOf(aX) >= 0;
} else if (!aX) {
return a2 && aW !== false;
} else if (a0 === "!=") {
return a2 !== aX;
} else if (a0 === "^=") {
return a2.indexOf(aX) === 0;
} else if (a0 === "$=") {
return a2.substr(a2.length - aX.length) === aX;
} else if (a0 === "|=") {
return a2 === aX || a2.substr(0, aX.length + 1) === aX + "-";
}
return false;
which you could also write as
return (aW == null) ? a0 === "!="
: (a0 === "=") ? a2 === aX
: (a0 === "*=") ? a2.indexOf(aX) >= 0
: (a0 === "~=") ? (" " + a2 + " ").indexOf(aX) >= 0
: (!aX) ? a2 && aW !== false
: (a0 === "!=") ? a2 !== aX
: (a0 === "^=") ? a2.indexOf(aX) === 0
: (a0 === "$=") ? a2.substr(a2.length - aX.length) === aX
: (a0 === "|=") ? a2 === aX || a2.substr(0, aX.length + 1) === aX + "-"
: false;
where this shows the IF on the left and the RETURN THIS on the left of the "?" on each line. Ugly. Un-maintainable. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually prefer the second version from a readability point of view (now that you've reformatted so it makes sense). Stick a comment at the top to say what it's doing and it wouldn't be so bad. The variable names and dynamic typing I'll admit is horrendous for readability though.
|
|
|
|
|
Finally I see what it is doing after 10 mins of staring at the code.
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing clever here; the code was obfuscated with a tool; it was intended to be hard to understand; the original code is probably very readable.
|
|
|
|
|
[quote]
There is nothing clever here; the code was obfuscated withby a tool; it was intended to be hard to understand; the original code is probably very readable.
[/quote]
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Try rewriting it using if ... else ... instead of ? :, this might increase readability to the point where you'll understand it.
But don't get your hopes high. This looks like some code intentionally obfuscated, potentially hand-crafted, intentionally written so it's not comprehensible, in order to prevent exactly what you are trying to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! That's the scariest ternary I've ever seen
|
|
|
|
|
The best I have done using javascript is to produce the confirm button.
I also do not like the funny code they write even jquery gives me headache
I only read newbie introductory dummy books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
One line of code thing aside, this is a pretty idiomatic use of the ternary operator. What's so clever about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Like others have said ... that looks to me like Obfuscated code - emitted by a tool of some kind.
If I had a developer working for me that wrote code like that I'd fire his ass.
-Max
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Although inline IFs are useful, that code looks as bad as it would look in the more traditional IF { } block form. I'm not convinced it's been generated by an obfuscator though.
|
|
|
|
|
Not being very much interested in web-stuff, yet I am proud of my new home-page, NOT ONE line of javascript - did you know that CSS can be used to achieve much of the "hover" functionality, which was all I ever wanted to customize, basically.
pg--az
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
