3 ms·

Using the ternary operator is more "eloquent" than conditionals? That's true iff "eloquent" means terse in terms of number of characters, but I find if(...){} m

Using the ternary operator is more "eloquent" than conditionals? That's true iff "eloquent" means terse in terms of number of characters, but I find if(...){} much more readable.

raganwald 15y ago
For the sake of a productive discussion, two of the things mentioned about converting ifs to ternaries _could_ be used to create better code. The ternery operator has some readability problems, but it is an expression, not a statement. Turning statements into expressions is powerful, which is why CoffeeScript's if/then compiles into an expression. Too bad this wan't mentioned. Likewise, the comma operator allows JavaScript programmers to use a block of consecutive statements as an expression, something the author points out when explaining how to use ternaries in place of if statements. The notion that you can use a sequence of statements as an expression without having to resort to a "let" form (function () { ...; ...; ...; return foo; })() is another underused construct that can make for improved JavaScript. Put the two ideas together, and yes you can express a multi-line if statement with shorter keywords, but more importantly you have an if expression without having to wrap it in a function and encumber it with return statements. I'm sorry that idea wasn't given more attention. If you aren't using JavaScript directly, this pattern may be useful in a more functional, expression-oriented style of programming.
xer0 15y ago
"I find if(...){} much more readable." Not only is it more readable, it's more correct in the example given. "if" is a statement. The ternary operator (?:) is an expression, that returns a value. The semantics are different, and using the ternary operator "merely" to replace an if statement, especially where no assignment of the ternary operator's return value is made, is a code smell. The ternary operator is great if you're replacing a simple "if something assignment to X else other assignment to X." Any other use is questionable.

Using the ternary operator is more "eloquent" than conditionals? That's true iff "eloquent" means terse in terms of number of characters, but I find if(...){} much more readable.

raganwald 15y ago

For the sake of a productive discussion, two of the things mentioned about converting ifs to ternaries _could_ be used to create better code. The ternery operator has some readability problems, but it is an expression, not a statement. Turning statements into expressions is powerful, which is why CoffeeScript's if/then compiles into an expression. Too bad this wan't mentioned. Likewise, the comma operator allows JavaScript programmers to use a block of consecutive statements as an expression, something the author points out when explaining how to use ternaries in place of if statements. The notion that you can use a sequence of statements as an expression without having to resort to a "let" form (function () { ...; ...; ...; return foo; })() is another underused construct that can make for improved JavaScript. Put the two ideas together, and yes you can express a multi-line if statement with shorter keywords, but more importantly you have an if expression without having to wrap it in a function and encumber it with return statements. I'm sorry that idea wasn't given more attention. If you aren't using JavaScript directly, this pattern may be useful in a more functional, expression-oriented style of programming.

xer0 15y ago

"I find if(...){} much more readable." Not only is it more readable, it's more correct in the example given. "if" is a statement. The ternary operator (?:) is an expression, that returns a value. The semantics are different, and using the ternary operator "merely" to replace an if statement, especially where no assignment of the ternary operator's return value is made, is a code smell. The ternary operator is great if you're replacing a simple "if something assignment to X else other assignment to X." Any other use is questionable.