[c7DJTLrn]

It's pretty pathetic how many people feel the need to dunk on this bit of code just because it's not how they would write it. There's nothing really wrong with it. I'm sure the author was aware of alternative, perhaps more concise solutions using a string builder but they chose to be clear instead.

So many big egos in software.

[arp242]

I mean, if this is the worst code people can come up with then it's better than most codebases I've had to deal with at $dayjob.

[doodlesdev]

I'm pretty sure they weren't because of the redundant conditionals which simply defy logic. If there was only one check for every if statement, honestly I could give this a pass since it's at the very least simple, but by adding one extra redundant check for every statement you just created 9 new places where a bug could appear.

Furthermore, using Unicode characters to represent progress is the true smell here. There simply are better ways to do this.

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter? No. But this is Hacker News LOL, someone has to discuss it.

[jeroenhd]

If I had to show a progress bar for less than a second in a screen the user will only open up once per 10 years (it's NFC code for scanning passports/ID cards), I wouldn't bother writing a reusable custom progress bar component either.

Sure, you can do it better, but why would you? There are other, more pressing issues in this code (that probably also don't warrant spending extra time on refactoring).

Those redundant checks are highlighted in every IDE I can think of. I can only assume they're there for readability.