I Hate Clever Javascript Programmers [modified]

[realJSOP]

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

[AspDotNetDev]

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).

[

S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.

](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)

[GibbleCH]

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

[wizardzz]

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

[realJSOP]

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

[TorstenH]

hmmm dirty code for personal use... :doh: It's from the search logic on a porno website! Damn, I knew I use it everyday ;P :laugh: regards Torsten

I never finish anyth...

[Tech Code Freak]

Bloody hell! this really needs a filter/translator to be understood or may take ages to be refined!! :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X| X|

[Erion Pici]

If you work your head around inline IFs you'll find them really useful. I use them in C# all the time!!

[Eddie Kuns]

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.

[loveangel888]

Finally I see what it is doing after 10 mins of staring at the code.

[Alexandru Lungu]

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.

Challenge is Life!

[Florin Jurcovici 0]

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.

[demius]

Wow! That's the scariest ternary I've ever seen

[Lost User]

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.

[JohnLBevan]

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.

[fjdiewornncalwe]

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.

[Eric W Scott]

The uncompressed source is on GitHub. https://github.com/mjijackson/shadowbox[^]

[Nemanja Trifunovic]

One line of code thing aside, this is a pretty idiomatic use of the ternary operator. What's so clever about it?

utf8-cpp

[Lost User]

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

[Erion Pici]

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.