@Meredith what do you think of my hat, it's bigger. Vogue says it's all the rage on SO.

don't hate me because I'm beautiful

wow

@Rick I cant tell what it is

does mine show up

@BenBeri You might get bonus points for using arrow functions if it's an interview. const calc = (x) => (y) => x + y;

parentheses? ew

const calc = x => y => ( x + y );

calc = (+)

get on my level

@KendallFrey it's a point of contention at work too... our current linting rules say parenthesis if it has more than 1 arg, or if it has a {} body

but none if it's single argument and either one line or with a () or jsx body

i prefer the consistency of just always putting parenthesis

That shouldn't be a linting rule, it's a syntax rule

just like i prefer always putting semicolons

it's linting for the body one

you can have multiline funcs with no parens

huh?

i'm pretty sure you can...

yeah like this:

const fatadd = x => {
  return y => {
    return x + y;
  };
};

oh that's just single param lambdas though

valid, but our linter says you need parenthesis around the arguments

your linter is dumb then

i think it's just the airbnb rules

that's what the original people picked as a default

eitherway, i prefer consistency so i always use parenthesis

and i always use semicolons

and i always use {}

none of this if (condition) return nonsense

I don't mind it being on one line, but I write it in full. if (condition) { return; }

So what are some alternatives to having jquery append a script tag?

appending it without jQuery

I'm not sure I'm following the question. do you have something more specific in mind?

Can you overwrite (not read) http only cookies?

I'm trying to add a stripe payment button to an element, but ill try it without jquery

@david Even in arrow functions?

When you dont need them

I often go way out of my way to avoid the (x) => { return x } style

@Meredith yeah i'm the same way. I guess I justify that in my head by saying they're different forms

it's not just a case of optional punctuation, it's also a whole optional return

Yeah I hate it

It really disrupts the flow of the code

@Meredith here's a fun question: How would you write a function to turn [['a', 1], ['b', 2]] into {a: 1, b: 2}? Like a reverse Object.entries.

(without using Object.fromEntries() because that's still firefox only)

Oh that's just converting a keyword list into a map

pretty common problem 1 sec

yeah it's incredibly common

and everyone uses a reduce

Do you want me to use something else?

but getting it to be succinct is hard

no reduce is fine

reduce is probably best

it's just an interesting problem because it's so common I feel like it should have a 'best' answer, but I am still unsure what that 'best' answer is.

Oh is this a test of how far I can go to avoid using { }

Object.assign({},...arr.map(([k,v])=>({[k]:v})));

:D

The answer is list |> Enum.into(%{})

@rlemon that's something I haven't seen before...

you could just spread the whole thing again

and it's interesting because it doesn't mutate anything

but I wanted to use Object.assign

!!> ({...Object.assign({}, ...[['a', 1], ['b', 2]].map(([k,v]) => ({[k]:v})))})

@rlemon {"a":1,"b":2}

oops

well, I guess not

ignore me

wait what's wrong? that seemed to work fine?

it did, but it wasn't any different really.

the extra object spread wasn't needed...

ah okay

ideone.com/vct5nq

i stole that from stackoverflow btw

>< i meant in javascript

I hate for comprehensions

look how unreadable that is

list.reduce((map, [k, v]) => ((map[k] = v, map)), {})

is the only true solution

yeah

good old comma operator

it's what I use too... but people get upset when they see it

I mean they should get upset cuz it's awful

is it though? what's awful about it?

It's just so hard to read

especially with reduce

hard to tell if map is the initial acc or not

morn

reduce is always going to be harder to read than more specific functions like map and filter

but i think the body is fairly readable

It depends

Like in this case it's only hard to read cuz we didn't abstract out a Map.set

It's not readable, I use to use reduce with closures for the second hash, people got really upset

the 2 issues I agree with are 1) Very few people know about the comma operator, so that makes it impossible for them to understand. and 2) Functional purists don't really like mutating the arguments to a function, so modifying map isn't ideal.

In reality the solution is just

npm install --save immutable

a version i've used that passes the linter and avoids those 2 issues is this:

(a) => a.reduce((o, [k, v]) => Object.assign(o, {[k]: v}), {});

no comma, no mutating the input object

I stay away from the Object/Function methods when I can

but many many intermediate objects

Object.assign is just one function I really don't like

I don't like it it either, "for in" would suffice

@Meredith that is truly terrible

Yeah it's rough

Why would you ever need to do that? Never make code complicated. Complex is okay, but that is definitely complicated.

What

it's pretty common

yeah @DavidKamer it's an incredibly common function to need to write

Clarify,you mean reduce, or the way it's used?

turning arrays into objects

Well yeah, but I mean that implementation

Reduce is usually good for maintaining immutability. How you use it, is up to you

To avoid having to type return

OMG, this is so far from any scenario that doesn't involve entirely bad arch that I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to do this without an object that would need it

What

You need return if you're going to need to use some conditional logic

The OMG was automatically capitalized. On mobile lol

Just use a shit ton of ternaries

@Meredith the architecture would have to be bad overall to need code like this

Usually you use it for small one of scripts that for example scrape an html table or reads a csv file and spits out json

@DavidKamer no it wouldn't. Building maps from arrays is incredibly common. Most often to give O(1) lookup if you're prepping for a meaty algorithm

@Meredith that doesn't sound like good arch lol

I use to do that, but it pissed people off.

It's useful if you don't want to pay for API access

@david maybe, but why would you need to put it in a map? Who put it in array?

@Meredith fair enough

It is also the best de-dupe algorithm ever

to_list(to_map(list))

That is the answer I was looking for lol

@DavidKamer have you ever called an API? the results usually come back as arrays

@david oh yeah, but what API returns trash that needs that piece of code

o_O

@david seriously I'll give you (insert something against COC,

I mean it's certainly informal

) if you tell me the API

I got a hat

But fundamentally that's how you would do it

yippe

@JBis good jarb

@DavidKamer I don't think you're understanding the problem. Using maps/objects to order data is INCREDIBLY common. Lets say you have a list of users, and you have some kind of matching algorithm that needs to get all the users of a certain country, or all the users with certain interests. You could call [].filter over and over, but in a complex algorithm that quickly spikes your complexity. Using maps to index the data lets you turn all those O(n) searches into O(1) lookups.

@david I'm not arguing with you.

@DavidKamer thanks

You should get the retro shades and put them on your toes

*tie

@JBis

how?

I think you just star an old Post or do something with an old Post

I googled something like "how to sort an array stack overflow"

and upvoted it

Lol nice

@JBis probably 1

Bc queries are expensive

IfI understand you

But profile each for your use case

does that taste good @Meredith?

depends on how stoned you are i guess

Wat omg lol

Just some koolaid mix in the background ready to add as a spice lol

Who let francis in here

who is francis

@Meredith the Pope

Oh is that still a thing

Apparently

@KendallFrey @Meredith see the Pope

why does he keep pouring mountain dew on the bacon

when its gonna go into a pot of mountain dew

@Meredith wat? The lacks to much context for me

idk theyre making mountain dew soup

@Meredith 1st world problems

with bacon and marshmallows

#toothdecay

epic meal time is still making videos lol

@DavidKamer ah

@DavidKamer grrr I did #2.

remember in like 2010 when everyone on reddit was making those sandwiches

@JBis I mean it's probably a negligable difference

@Meredith I can't remember 2014. How can you remember 2010 lol

@DavidKamer Not necessarily if its 100's of elements

check out this cool question skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36652/…

do we still get hats for gold badges?

@JBis well yeah. At that point you should have avoided it all together though

@10Replies yes very cool. I find on a 1-10, adults will tend to pick 2,3, or 5, while kids will choose 9 or 10.

@DavidKamer true. true.

@JBis I always choose zero

@10Replies Well arrays do start there...

cough do we still get hats for gold badges cough

cough skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36652/…