Avoiding if-else Hell: The Functional Style

Looks like it’s JavaScript, but in Java I would prefer to use the Stream API, something like this:

return availableDrivers.stream()
    .filter(driver -> calculateDistance(rider, driver) < 5)
    .filter(driver -> isPreferredVehicle(rider, driver))
    .filter(driver -> meetsRiderPreferences(rider, driver))
    .findFirst()
    .orElse(null);

Then we have:

private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) {
    if (driver.rating >= 4.5) {
        if (rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver')) {
              return driver.isPremiumDriver;
        } else {
              return true;
        }
    } else if (driver.rating >= 4.0) {
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
}

This increases the separation of concern in a neat way, and it becomes more clear what the for loop does at a glance (get the first driver satisfying a set of conditions). The more complicated logic is isolated in meetsRiderPreferences, which now only returns true or false. Reading the method is more about making a mental map of a truth table.

It’s also easy to expand the logic (add more filter conditions, sort the drivers based on rating and distance, break out meetsRiderPreferences into smaller methods, etc.).

Not sure how the equivalent in JavaScript would look like, but this is what I would do in Java.

I try to prefer .findAny() over .findFirst() because it will perform better in some cases (it will have to resolve whether there are other matches and which one is actually first before it can terminate - more relevant for parallel streams I think. findAny short circuits that) but otherwise I like the first. I'd probably go with some sort of composed predicate for the second, to be able to easily add new criteria. But I could be over engineering.

I mostly just posted because I think not enough people are aware of the reasons to use findAny as a default unless findFirst is needed.
- For me I have the habit of doing findFirst because determinism is important where I work. But I agree with you if determinism is not of importance.

Using early returns and ternary conditional operator changes

private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) {
    if (driver.rating >= 4.5) {
        if (rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver')) {
              return driver.isPremiumDriver;
        } else {
              return true;
        }
    } else if (driver.rating >= 4.0) {
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
}

to

private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) {
    if (driver.rating < 4.0) return false;
    if (driver.rating < 4.5) return true;

    return rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver') ? driver.isPremiumDriver : true;
}

dunno if java has them, but in C# switch expressions could put more of a case focus on the cases

private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) {
    return driver.rating switch {
        < 4.0 => false,
        < 4.5 => true,
        _      => rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver') ? driver.isPremiumDriver : true,
    };
}

or with a body expression

private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) => driver.rating switch {
    < 4.0 => false,
    < 4.5 => true,
    _      => rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver') ? driver.isPremiumDriver : true,
};

The conditional has a true result so it can be converted to a simple bool condition as well.

private boolean meetsRiderPreferences(Rider rider, Driver driver) => driver.rating switch {
    < 4.0 => false,
    < 4.5 => true,
    _      => !rider.preferences.includes('Premium Driver') || driver.isPremiumDriver,
};

While I can get behind most of the advice here, I don’t actually like the conditions array. The reason being that each condition function now needs additional conditions to make sure it doesn’t overlap with the other condition functions. This was much more elegantly handled by the else clauses, since adding another condition to the array has now become a puzzle to verify the conditions remain non-overlapping.

To each their own. Some won't like the repeating code and some won't like the distributed logic (i.e. you have to read every if and if-else statement to know when the else takes effect). I think the use of booleans like isDriverClose makes the repeated logic less messy and reduces inefficiency (if the compiler didn't optimize for you).

This doesn’t get rid of the if statements. It hides them.

It doesn't hide. It makes them happen first and, here's the important bit, closes their scope quickly.
- The scope is irrelevant it’s a single function class as presented. It was a single method that they broke out “to hide the ifs”. Then they just used compiler specialties to remove the word ‘if’ from the assignments. The comparisons are still there and depending on the execution path those constants may not be so constant during runtime.
It has conditionals not but actual if statements. Not really different in functionality but a more consistent style.
- They’re still ifs. They’ve just been lambda’d and assigned to constants.

Sometimes is it worth to rethink the problem. Especially when your condition is based on set-members. Using quantor logic often simplifies the condition :

return 
    any(x for x in X if x==condition_a) 
    or all(y for y in Y if y==condition_b) 
    and all(x for x in X if x==condition_c)

I am not sure if JS has something similar, but this often helps by a lot

I am not sure if JS has something similar, but this often helps by a lot

It does, the some/every array methods would achieve the same results. I use them quite often myself!

EDIT: read the article turns out it's super useful... It gives insight into decision table which is a pattern I did not know about until recently...

Is this really a recurring design pattern for y'all?

I mean, you can just use a switch. anyways I'll read the article and see ;)

Decision tables are nice. They hide the important part of the logic away out of view of another programmer trying to figure out a bug in the code.

Very helpful! You take longer to find and fix bugs, and potentially miss a few extra ones because of stuff like this. Increased tech debt. Highly recommended! 👍
- I mean, you can just right click "Definition" in VSCode and see how it works... It's not that inconvenient.
  
  It's easy to read, write and refactor so I don't really see what you mean.
Also take a look at the Specification Pattern for something similar.

That’s something I would only use if the logic becomes very complex, but it can help break things down nicely in those cases.
I can't find it right now, but there is some explanation in "Clean Code" why switches shouldn't be used all over the place.
- In case you’re wondering about the down votes, many think Clean Code is not a good book. It got a few good advice, but it also got bad advice disguised as good advice.
  
  I don’t think switch statements should always be avoided. There are cases where polymorphism makes things more difficult to maintain. Saying polymorphism should be used over switch statements is not a good advice.
  
  Here’s an article going into more detail why we should stop recommending Clean Code: https://qntm.org/clean
- Google for "replace conditional with polymorphism".
  
  Just checked and it is in "Clean Code" - Chaper 17; Section G23 "Prefer Polymorphism to if/else or switch/case".

The fact that the loop is doing "find first driver matching these strange criteria" seems most obviously obscured by the pattern of assigning a value, then killing the loop or not. This strikes me as the part that makes the algorithm tedious to test, since it forces us to use a collection to test the intricacies of the inner conditions.

Once we isolate "find first driver matching condition" from computing the condition for each driver, I consider the rest a question of personal taste. Specification pattern, composition of filters, something like that. Whatever you find easier to follow.

My issue with this is that it works well with sample code but not as well with real-world situations where maintaining a state is important. What if rider.preferences was expensive to calculate?

Note that this code will ignore a rider's preferences if it finds a lower-rated driver before a higher-rated driver.

With that said, I often work on applications where even small improvements in performance are valuable, and that is far from universal in software development. (Generally developer time is much more expensive than CPU time.) I use C++ so I can read this like pseudocode but I'm not familiar with language features that might address my concerns.

I love how this tries to sell making your code strictly worse as something positive.

Sigh. And it's still full of ifs.

This is called the Pyramid of Doom, by the way.

As a Jr Developer, I found this very helpful. Thanks.

You might want to think about it a bit more before putting it to work. The comment with the streams example is far, far better.
Yeah, honestly you should stick to if/else until you're really sure you want to do something more complex.