Popular posts

Depends on the perspective.

Not quite. There is not need to over-complicate things when they are not required. For the randomization, you might as well use LCG, EE-PRNG, or the LFSR approach. However, owing to the simplicity of the game, you do not need to. If, however, the situation arises that this is used for a very specific purpose, then only should you use it. KISS.

With a third-party package...

Agreed. My bad.

...since as the game grows...

I thought you might add something later. Pardon me for assuming. However, streams are the way you should use anything like pushing. It's a pretty standard JS practice (primarily in Node.)

JavaScript is sync and some tasks are blocking..

JavaScript, by design, is a synchronous language which is executed top-to-bottom. If a code block takes times, the next line will not be executed.

for( ;; );
console.log( 'Hello World!' ); // won't work

You exact statement is:

JavaScript is the same. Except, it's not. It's all async.

It's not all async at all. You use async programming techniques to get pseudo async. I am just talking about what your statement was and its exact implication.

I'd suggest using while( true )

Alright. You can't loop while true is true. So, +1 for semantics. ;)

Instead of escaping [..] you can use double-quotes

Alright.

For the if-then-else ladder, using an elseif block is much better

Separate if statements are used when the condition is to be evaluated multiple times. For example:

const caseOne = 'test';
const errors = [];
const warnings = [];

if ( caseOne === 'test' ) {
  errors.push( 'Error!' );
} else if ( caseOne === 'not-test' ) {
  errors.push( 'Warning!' );
}

Here, only one block should execute. Or more specifically, you only need one of these conditions to be true.

const myArr = [ 'test' ];
const errors = [];
const warnings = [];

if ( myArr.length <= 1 ) {
  errors.push( 'Can not execute with just one parameter' );
} 

if ( myArr[ 0 ] === 'test' ) {
  warnings.push( 'test is not allowed in the argument chain.' );
}

You are achieving the same thing in your code, however, the way you are doing that is semantically incorrect. It's a bad programming practice.

---

Anyway, further arguing about this is a common waste of time. To one their own! :)

KISS.

might be ok for an application, however not for a tutorial introducing different tools. While the content is simple, I want to add more complex concepts, so that it does not feel overwhelming later on.

You exact statement is

under the headline "Input, Processing, Output". You are tearing my statement out of context.

It's a bad programming practice.

Never heard of that one, but I understand your concern. To be honest, though, I really like Jason's idea with the do..while and ternary operator. I guess we both missed that obvious one, which is pretty dumb haha

further arguing about this is a common waste of time

I don't think so. I do publish articles and write answers in order to learn what others think. I love to argue! And I also update the article with your feedback, because it's valuable.

It's the reason I am on Hashnode. i don't have a mentor myself, and I work with web dev all day, so I sometimes stop thinking and just do dumb things. And I need someone who tells me where to improve 🙂 So thank you for the discussion!

Your last block really excited me! Most of the times, I am shunned because people think I am being argumentative for no apparent reason. Since I started as a self-taught developer, we are hard-wired to argue about what, why, when and where. So, high-five!

---

KISS

I am a tutor for JavaScript, full stack development and applied cryptography and I have, over the course of some years, realized that sometimes when we teach people advanced concepts, they think it's the go-to method or they don't venture out their comfort zone. Some do, most don't. I have seen it in my own students; and hence I wanted to point it out. I agree with you introducing it right now so that later it's not that daunting, but I prefer to start simple and only go into complex thing if and when required. For example, just for this, I explain the students why this is a bad way to get random number for a secure operation (entropy, etc.) Unless I encounter that, I do not introduce any thing which is complicated in anyway whatsoever. But well, everyone has their own teaching style. If you prefer this method, your wish.

under the headline "Input, Processing, Output".

I am not "tearing it out of context." If you said - "however, when operating - especially in I/O processing - most of JavaScript is modeled to act asynchronously" I would not comment. I know you understand the difference; I am just asking you to rephrase the statement as it is a little ambiguous (the reason why we argued over it);.

It's a bad programming practice.

Jason's idea is honestly something we, I don't know how, missed. However, with tertiary operators, don't you think the code will be a little confusing? And, it implements exactly what I told you. It's an if-elseif ladder. ;)

However, with tertiary operators, don't you think the code will be a little confusing?

Ternary.

... I don't see how, so long as you keep it cleanly formatted it should be reasonable to assume that if the first line is a condition followed by a ?, it's not rocket science to figure out the rest.

But then I've been programming for so long, much of the stuff people have "problems" with leaves me scratching my head, as I didn't have those types of comprehension issues 40 years ago as a pre-teen. Much less the three decades ago when I started writing software in a professional capacity.

... and then I stare at python or ruby confused out of my gourd as to how anyone could call that simple or easy... YMMV.

Pardon my error.

But I guess since this is a beginner tutorial, I have seen people scratch their heads when they encounter nested ternary operators. Do a quick search on SO and you will find thousands of people trying to make sense of something which is pretty every-day for the rest of us. However, with proper explanation I guess it shouldn't be a problem.

and then I stare at python or ruby...

You aren't the only one, trust me.