HN Explorer

32 comments

[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 69.4 ms ] thread
platzhirsch
I love social coding, because there is so much hate.
tylerlh
My head... it just did an ess'plode. Kudos
Kluny
love it. small typo: "Oh no! there is nothign here!" on the not found page.

Although, given the nature of the site, you might as well leave it as is.

verelo
I actually love this. What would be a great feature is the ability to "add to clipboard". I found myself wanting to share one, and it was a bit of a bitch to copy and paste it (the structure on the page just doesnt lend well to highlight and copy)
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
LuxuryMode
I gave it a whirl. Entered some ruby and clicked post with no title entered. Nothing happened. Just back to /post...
biot
It's interesting that this is one of the most hated (http://hatepaste.com/paste/f5da3584):

  if (someBoolean == true) {
      doSomething();
  }
I got into the habit of doing this since it's immediately obvious that the value you're comparing is expected to be a boolean and not something like an integer, which could cause subtle bugs later on if what you thought was a boolean gets negated. More commonly, it's of the form:

  if (someValue == false) ...
rather than:

  if (!someValue) ...
to distinguish this from:

  if (someValue == 0) ...
It only takes an extra fraction of a second of typing and increases clarity for the next developer, or for you six months later. Anyone else do this too?
koenigdavidmj
In Java, it's a compile error to pass something not of type `bool' into that expression, so things like

  if (someBoolean)
Are unambiguous.
biot
True. I suppose this is more of a holdover from my C programming days.
DrCatbox
Its far easier to read if (!someBoolean) than if (someBoolean == false)

Ofcourse, your example probably applies to JavaScript since anything and everything can be a boolean, or not depending on the phase of the moon. In Java at least if not someBoolean is nice to read, and if (isGood) is nicer than if (isGood == true).

polyfractal
I think this is a pretty subjective topic - you can't say that one way is easier to read than any other way (for anyone except yourself).

Some people prefer verbosity over brevity, just like some people prefer K&R braces to Allman, or CamelCase to underscoring.

radicalbyte
If you're going to do that, at least go the whole hog and avoid assignment/comparison bugs:

  if (true == someBoolean) {
    // code
  }
scott_w
Not usually. However, I do sometimes make explicit comparisons to False or None if I can end up with both, and the behaviour differs depending on what I have.

It's probably not the best idea to be doing that, but it's not tripped me up yet ;-)

ef4
Just as long as you don't do this:

    if (someBoolean){
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
dan-g
This is awesome, but it'd be really nice if you could vote on the overview pages (Most Hated, Most Alright, Newest, etc) for the shorter examples rather than having to click on through to its own unique page.
simon02
Looks nice. Quick note: please change the of color the timestamps and the categories, they are unreadable to me. Hardly even noticed they were there.
yitchelle
In some ways, I like this better that dailywtf.com as it is like reading Dilbert vs watching "The office". Great work!
drivebyacct2
An explanation should be required. There are several of these that I find nothing wrong with
billpatrianakos
I can't believe you admitted that here! That means you're a terrible programmer! Of course I'm kidding. There were quite a few I saw nothing wrong with too. I think some of it pretty subjective. Other stuff, especially the HTML and CSS snippets, look terrible on their own but a lot of times if you have context you'd get why the person made that choice.
monsur
And its an Archers of Loaf song, nice!
pawelwentpawel
you just made my evening, please add 'fb share' button! ;)
Intermediate
how about adding comments?
uncoder0
I would love some comments with voting so that you can see the most "valid" reason the code in question is bad.
SteveOS
Similar to badprogramming.com