I just stumbled across this in a code review. Surely I'm missing something here....

Well I sure am missing the usage of the two to be able to tell if it's alright or not.

@Pyjong var v = Const.Zero -1;

Normally I would say this has been done to apply the clean code paradigm.

So I'm more than a little disappointed when you presented us the usage.

You're just not smart enough to understand this. Typical at mortal individuals.

But for real... WTF?

@TylerDDevRant I'm not mad just disappointed

Kinda makes sense for limit tests, where the limits can change randomly.
Usage in actual production code? nope.

Yeah I wanna know too, is this a test? There must be something behind this. It is more work than just punching in the numbers

@magicMirror but in that case they should be named something like MinLimit, MaxLimit.

@cafecortado thats really for the author to name it. This makes sense too.

@Pyjong it was in a test but was related to number of days in the future.

@cafecortado thats why "kinda makes sense".

@Pyjong if you expect the value to change in the future then you absolutely should not hardcode it imo (only applies to the maxthreedigitnumber var)

@arcsector yeah I agree. Although why not Zero. Base would be more obvious to me by name, but again that's for the author to decide what the name's gonna be.

@Pyjong agreed. The only reason to name it Zero is if you dont expect it to change from Zero... wtffff

is that a COBOL dev? xD

This is absolutely terrible in every conceivable way, because one day someone is going to change it to Zero = 1 and well, do I need to say more? Variables should be named by their function, not their current assignment, even if it is const. I also like my const to be UPPERCASE, but that would (comparatively) be nitpicking in this case.

But at least you have code reviews.

@saucyatom
The more you think about it the worse it gets.

The feed did me justice and brought up this again, which I read a few weeks ago. Perfect fit for this rant!
https://devrant.com/rants/2256386/...

Edit: Though when I think about it, these are descriptive.. just in a terribly wrong way.

Looks like that was done to eliminate some magic numbers. Naming could've been better though.

If you're running analyzers that check for magic numbers, this was done rather than suppressing the warning.

If you're not, is there references/pointers to these values? It can be done to ensure you're always getting a reference to the same constant.

If you're still not, they're stupid.

Still better than

const THREE = 4;

Shit interns do, man...