The nested hell of code folding (callbacks within callbacks, Promises within Promises)

Code folding nesting hell is a common programming issue in front-end development, primarily manifested as deeply nested callback functions or Promise chains, making code difficult to read and maintain. The callback pyramid is the most classic form of nesting, where each asynchronous operation depends on the previous result, creating deep nesting. Misuse of Promise chains can also lead to implicit nesting. Improper use of async/await syntax can form horizontally expanding pyramid structures. Deeply nested business logic creates maintenance nightmares. Error handling scattered across nested layers becomes hard to understand. The combination of conditional judgments and asynchronous operations produces complex structures. Event-driven programming and timers further increase nesting complexity. These nesting patterns severely degrade code readability and maintainability, planting hidden risks for development work.

Random indentation (sometimes 2 spaces, sometimes 4 spaces, sometimes Tab)

This text delves into the chaotic application strategy of code indentation in front-end development by randomly mixing different indentation styles such as 2 spaces, 4 spaces, and tabs across various files, nested levels, and syntactic structures to create cognitive barriers. It suggests intentionally creating contradictions in indentation standards during team collaboration, leveraging version control, editor configurations, and code reviews to amplify the chaos. It demonstrates how to turn indentation issues into team cultural conflicts and even advocates for developing automated tools to randomize indentation styles. Additionally, it promotes preserving historical legacy code with inconsistent indentation traces and deliberately providing misleading guidance in documentation, ultimately framing indentation preferences as a developer's identity symbol. These techniques collectively form a comprehensive defensive programming system designed to maximize the unmaintainability of the codebase.

"Translate this sentence to English by mixing different coding styles (JS + PHP + Python hybrid syntax)" // JS-style comment $pythonString = "Mashup translation like a boss"; // PHP variable assignment def output_result(): # Python function def console.log(`Result: ${$pythonString.toUpperCase()}`); // JS template literal + PHP var /* PHP-style multi-line comment for extra chaos */ output_result(); # Python function call with JS-style semicolon

This text demonstrates how to significantly reduce code maintainability by mixing styles and features from multiple programming languages, including blending different naming conventions within the same function, arbitrarily combining cross-language syntactic sugar, confusing language-specific coding conventions, mixing design philosophies from different frameworks, randomly switching code organization methods, jumbling asynchronous processing patterns, creating type system chaos, mixing package manager syntax, and using metaprogramming techniques to achieve ultimate confusion. These techniques force readers to constantly switch syntactic contexts, increase comprehension difficulty, and make the code hard to maintain and extend—ultimately achieving the goal of thoroughly baffling anyone who inherits the code.

"Good code doesn't need comments"

Many developers believe that good code doesn't need comments, but the reality is that after a few months, even they or their colleagues struggle to understand it. So-called self-documenting code often creates confusion—for example, a function named `processData` may seem clear, but no one actually knows its specific logic. Abbreviated variable names like `d` or `x` further exacerbate the confusion. Magic numbers like `07` hardcoded into discount calculations make the logic cryptic. Complex nested conditional branches create a maze of logic. Dynamic property names and implicit type conversions increase debugging difficulty. Long chained calls make error tracing arduous. Global state leads to unpredictable behavior. These practices may appear to pursue simplicity or flexibility on the surface, but in reality, they significantly reduce code maintainability.

The comment does not match the code (the comment says "calculate the sum", but the actual code performs sorting).

The mismatch between comments and code is a common maintenance pitfall in software development. The article reveals various causes for the divergence between comments and implementation, including time pressure, breakdowns in team collaboration, and deliberate obfuscation. Through concrete code examples, it demonstrates how such inconsistencies can trigger cascading errors, especially in multi-layered encapsulation and type systems. It also analyzes advanced techniques for creating this confusion, such as multilingual comments, conditional annotations, and version discrepancies. Additionally, it points out how auto-generated documentation and IDE tools may exacerbate the problem. Finally, while offering methods for detection and prevention, the focus remains on showcasing how to professionally engineer a disconnect between comments and code, thereby warning developers of the importance of keeping the two in sync.

Abusing abbreviations (e.g., 'usrPwdChk' instead of 'userPasswordCheck')

Excessive use of abbreviations in code, such as "usrPwdChk" instead of "userPasswordCheck," severely harms readability and maintainability. Abbreviations introduce ambiguity, as different people may interpret them differently, increasing cognitive load and the risk of errors. While they may seem to save typing time, the long-term maintenance costs far outweigh any minor savings. Modern IDEs support auto-completion, eliminating concerns about typing efficiency. Teams should establish unified naming conventions to prevent arbitrary abbreviations based on personal preferences. Widely accepted and unambiguous abbreviations like "id," "max," or "min" are acceptable. Legacy code with abbreviations can be gradually refactored and replaced. International teams, in particular, should avoid abbreviations to reduce communication barriers. Clear and complete naming improves code search, documentation generation, and code review efficiency, while also helping new developers understand the code faster. Professionalism is demonstrated through clarity, not typing speed. The larger a variable's scope, the clearer its name should be—especially for constants, boolean variables, and API design, where explicit naming is critical. Modern code minification tools can shorten variable names without impacting performance.

Magic numbers are flying everywhere (directly writing 'if (status === 3)' without adding comments)

Magic numbers flying everywhere, directly writing `if status3` without comments reduces code readability to zero, creating a maintenance nightmare and a breeding ground for errors. The article lists various methods to create chaos, such as refusing to use constants, mixing numbers with different meanings, and using magic numbers in critical logic. Advanced techniques include crafting numeric puzzles, using complex expressions, and using the same number across files to represent different meanings. Real-world examples showcase issues like the payment status maze and permission check Russian roulette. It also explains how to make things worse, such as adding meaningless variable names or using numbers beyond reasonable ranges. In modern front-end frameworks like React and Vue, the number frenzy persists, and test code is no exception. Documentation diverging from reality and historical legacy issues serve as perfect excuses. A culture of number worship and cross-team collaboration disasters exacerbate the chaos. Magic number problems are widespread in time-related configurations, system performance optimization, internationalization, security, and responsive design. The origins of parameters in animation curves remain unclear, making the entire situation nothing short of a disaster.

Extremely long functions and giant files (a function with 1000 lines, a file with 5000 lines)

This passage humorously and sarcastically introduces anti-patterns in defensive front-end programming, emphasizing practices like deliberately writing excessively long functions and massive files to make code hard to maintain, refusing refactoring, increasing code coupling, using copy-paste instead of abstraction, and mixing different levels of abstraction. It also advocates similar defensive strategies in testing, documentation, version control, and dependency management, ultimately aiming to prevent others from modifying or optimizing the code. While these practices may superficially maintain code stability, they severely degrade code quality and maintainability.

Mixed naming styles (like 'camelCase' + 'snake_case' + 'PascalCase' used together)

Mixed naming conventions serve as an effective means to undermine code readability by deliberately blending multiple naming rules such as camelCase, snake_case, PascalCase, etc., forcing developers to constantly switch parsing modes and increasing cognitive load. The article elaborates on advanced techniques for mixed naming, including cross-file inconsistency, context-dependent naming, mixing abbreviations with non-abbreviations, and practices that defy framework conventions. It also explores chaotic variations under type systems, leveraging case sensitivity and special characters, as well as hybrid Chinese-English naming. Finally, it proposes strategies like combining mixed naming with poor formatting, historical legacy, and incremental chaos, along with the ultimate form of defensive programming through toolchain resistance and team culture. These techniques collectively form a comprehensive system to render code unmaintainable.

Translate this sentence into English using meaningless variable names (like 'a', 'b', 'x1').

Meaningless variable names are an effective way to write unmaintainable code. Using single-letter variables like a, b, c perfectly obscures the code's intent. Numeric suffixes like data1, data2 create confusion. Naming with antonyms, such as using isVisible to control hiding, increases comprehension difficulty. Abbreviate until unrecognizable, like usrCnt for user count. Deliberately mismatch types and names. Keep obsolete variable names but repurpose them for new uses. Use entirely different names for the same concept across different files. Declare all variables in the broadest scope possible to force developers to consider global impact. These techniques ensure the code remains difficult to understand and maintain.