Read further down on my other comment to understand, it’s just how the operator looks

…and the browser is Internet Explorer

It specifically refers to this shorthand ?: that works like this:

$value = $thing_that_could_be_truthy ?: 'fallback value';

# same as

$value = $thing_that_could_be_truthy ? $thing_that_could_be_truthy : 'fallback value';

The condition is also the value if it is truthy

php too

…but we don’t talk about php

On the left you have Elvis Presley, while on the right there’s the so-called Elvis operator

Brb, gonna code flappy bird with it

That’s super standard for actual infrastructure

For them it’s just “the code”

Lol that’s so out there that it gained a few points for me

Perhaps we are

BTW that clip looks surprisingly underwhelming, is it official Futurama?

Professional gramming

Where progaming 😤😤

Based, too bad it’s not as easy to find jobs to feed the family (me) with better languages usually simply by virtue of them being newer and having less adoption

Tell me about it, when the roles are reversed and nor the manager ex-dev nor the older dev care about good programming practices it’s a far west where the junior desperately tries to become the dictator of a ruleless country

That’s true, I don’t know how it could be described as a hard rule though

oh, I get it now

Yes, I feel like some kind of bell should ring in your brain when something needs to be commented, most often if you struggled to write out the solution or you had to do a lot of digging from various places to achieve the final resulting piece of code, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to pressure yourself into thinking you should comment everything, because some knowledge has to be assumed, nowadays you could even add that if someone completely extraneous to the codebase entered without any knowledge, they could feed the parts of code they need to understand into some LLM to get a feel for what they’re looking at, with further feedback from actual devs though, you never know what random bs they might write.
Good one on the variables to store results of expressions, I agree with that method, though I always forget to do that because I get so lost in the pride of writing that convoluted one-liner that I think, “oh yeah, this is perfectly beautiful and understandable 😇”, I have to check myself more on that.

complex portions in some of my projects that would appreciate similar simplification

So I’m not alone on that haha.

This is why […] better

Sorry, what’s the subject of that?

Making up an example on the spot is kinda difficult for me, but I’d look at it this way with a bold statement, you should hope that most code won’t need comments. Let’s exclude documentation blocks that are super ok to be redundant as they should give a nice, consistent, human readable definition of what x thing does (function, constant, enum, etc.) and maybe even how to use it if it’s non-intuitive or there are some quirks with it.
After that, you delve in the actual meat of the code, there are ways to make it more self explanatory like extracting blocks of stuff into functions, even when you don’t think it’ll be used again, to be used with care though, as not to make a million useless functions, better is to structure your code so that an API is put into place, enabling you to write code that naturally comes out high level enough to be understood just by reading, this thing is very difficult for me to pinpoint though, because we think of high level code as abstractions, something that turns the code you write from describing the what rather than the how, but really, it’s a matter of scope, a print statement is high level if the task is to print, but if the task is to render a terminal interface then the print becomes low level, opposite is also true, if you go down and your task is to put a character onto stdout, then the assembly code you’d write might be high level. What I mean to say is that, once you have defined the scope, then you can decide what level of knowledge to expect of the reader when looking at your code, from there, if some process feels fairly convoluted, but it doesn’t make sense to build an abstraction over it, then it is a good place to put a comment explaining why you did that, and, if it’s not really clear, even what that whole block does

Syntax error on line 1, column 53: expected object for predicate `get`

I program in natural language