undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbitwize3y ago0 comments

    expect(me).to.barf.when(i.see(shit.like(this)));

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

jitl3y ago· 2 in thread

It’s great for tab completion and can be very smart about types, and newer ones like jest don’t have excessive chaining style. Less bad than it used to be

iudqnolq3y ago

What's wrong with ordinary expressions? That's discoverable too, and you often don't need any discovery cause it's the same code you write normally.

assert(Object.is(foo.bar(), baq));

(where assert is magic that fails woth a friendly message when it's argument is falsy.

jitl3y ago

Everyone replaces `assert(isTrue: boolean)` with more specific assertions so that failures can produce helpful and specific error messages; something like assert.isEqual(a, b) can at least print a and b, but ideally can print the difference between a and b (which Jest does) -- where all `assert(a == b)` can produce is "Oops, assertion failed at line XYZ".

If you expect `assert(...)` to be magic enough to provide diffing and smart error messages because it's actually some kind of macro... then I guess we have different views on magic.

My point about completion is that if you do expect(a).<tab> with a smart library, the library can complete the list of assertions that apply to the type of `a`. Eg, if `a` is an Iterable, a good assertion library could complete `expect(a).toInclude(`. Jest doesn't do type-narrowed assertions (sad) but it could.

1 more reply

nailer3y ago· 2 in thread

As someone who once made things like that, and is now an adult:

I was doing this to show people I could do it. I wasn't thinking of the people using my software but rather myself.

bitwizeOP3y ago

It's what I call a stupid language trick. Don't get me wrong, they can be fun, and I don't hold things like this against you. But when people want me to write production code like that I want to clock somebody with my keyboard. TDD and BDD types get hot and bothered for this sort of thing since it makes the code look like Gherkin or whatever contrived specification language they favor this month.

everforward3y ago

I dislike them because it falls into an uncanny valley that messes with my mind.

It's close enough to English that my brain tries to context switch from coding to writing English, but it's not close enough for that to actually work. It feels like I end up fighting my own mind.

I'm glad somebody has tried it so we know what it looks like, but personally I prefer the more "traditional" syntax.

silverwind3y ago

Excessive chaining is bad, yes. I would at most use a `.not` to invert, anything more is unnecessary.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse