47

Here we f**king go again ... part 3.

#speechless

I am so done ~

Comments
  • 10
    Hey man, how's your job hunt going?
  • 4
    @anux still finding... Well in my country the economic crisis made most companies not able to hire. .... I'm finding a way out tho.
  • 12
    You can't actually be serious. This cannot be in a codebase.
  • 7
    But it looks so pretty!
  • 1
  • 3
    Someone had fun
  • 11
    @johnmelodyme it’s the only explanation for it. Someone liked all the colours in their code. It’s like some kind of fucked up rainbow.
  • 2
    @UnicornPoo is a bad code apologetic. ;-)
  • 9
    Doesn't that code need another ! (not) to be correct though? I counted even number of nots.
  • 6
    @johnmelodyme check out remote jobs too. weworkremotely and a couple other places offer remote work from european or american companies. Also keep a lookout on angel list.
  • 2
    @anux thanks for the idea bro 🥰🙏
  • 3
    @johnmelodyme anytime bro
  • 2
    The fuck? Isn't one negation enough?
  • 2
    @iiii in fact there should be a comment saying 'this is a condition check'
  • 4
    If he did this in any other country he would be fired on the spot. In fact even in spite of all the extraneous !’s, it’s still wrong bc they cancel each other out and we are left with the equivalent of if(response) throw Error. So basically getting any response that is truthy (not null, etc) will throw an error. I can say he sucks ass at the following: clean code, Boolean logic, basic javascript, counting, attention to detail, and not being a pain in the ass
  • 1
    Can't you do something like:

    return response OR throw error
  • 4
    This is not not not not not not not good code

    Is this a Gordian not?
  • 0
    @bahua if you read my rant, you will realize the person who code this wasn't me.
  • 1
    @johnmelodyme

    I did, and I know. Can't A PERSON do that?
  • 0
    @bahua can actually... But he did this on the Dev branch. This is torture.
  • 3
    @johnmelodyme Consider maybe they know this would torture you.
  • 3
    If this has made it into a codebase, there's either no sensible review process in place, other devs just don't care enough to actually review code, or other devs are so disillusioned they want to put crap like this in the codebase.

    I'm not sure what's worse really.
  • 0
  • 0
    @AlmondSauce that's the thing, the company I am currently in, don't do a review, is that I am secretly doing the review, (because they told me it is a waste of time.) because I realise the server behave and send the log so weird.
  • 2
    @johnmelodyme

    Yeah, clean code prevents managers getting phone calls when they're trying to quietly cheat on their wives.
  • 0
    Sorry I call bs. Response is misspelled in the ugly line. There's no way this code would work right? Or is this some weird Javascript thing where it does not throw an exception?

    I'm thinking: Either we're missing context, or it's not real
  • 3
    @jkommeren “response” is undefined so no error is thrown bc the !!!!!!reponse in the if is false. So the code should still work for most cases but it won’t throw an error if the response is empty
  • 2
    Now I know why we use Y.R.T.t(), the fucker can't spell 😅

    This looks staged for the screenshot,
    reponse is spelt wrong, the ; is not uniform with the rest of the code - there's a space before it, and what in the fuck is with all the NOT checks, this literally becomes:

    If(reponse) throw error ;
  • 1
    @Demolishun all those !s are meant to exclaim the 100% incorrectness it is cooked with
  • 5
    Does this warrant a response... or not
  • 1
    @johnmelodyme Wouldn't stay anywhere like that. The code is bound to be shite, and you're bound to be constantly putting out fires as a result.
  • 2
    Is this some interview question about javashit? That cannot be in a real codebase come on hahaha
  • 1
    @gcavalcante8808

    "javashit"

    Its spelled as "javascript".
  • 1
    and your boss would never know about it probably, so whoever did it (git blame *cough cough*) can get away with it
  • 4
    !(!(!(!(!(!(LOL))))))
  • 1
    I loled hard
  • 1
    Could someone link part 1 and 2 please? :) :D
  • 1
    He's doing it to get you fired from the looks of it. Always going to HR and stuff. Seems intentional. 1. He is only one that can work on codebase (its doubtful he could ever do a quick change to his own code) and 2. He has it out for you. Did you date a girl he stalks or something?
  • 1
    there's a mistake in that condition.

    it should say "throw up"
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
    But the colors are so nice
  • 0
Add Comment