Can you convert this code to not use an IF statement?

This is out of pure curiosity. A senior developer at work expressed his opinion to be regarding IF statements and said that we should write code that doesn't use IF statements.
His reason being that you write better code and have a direct app flows over conditional flows.

It was his opinion and nothing to be taken literal however I want to know, is the following code possible without an IF statement?

Code:

---

int input = getUserInput();
if(input > 10) {
 handleHigh();
} else {
  handleLow();
}

---

Be as creative as you want. I tried, I couldn't think of anyway on how to do it.


Edit;

Update! Just found one excellent way to do this!

Code:

---

NavigableMap<Integer, InputHandler> messages = new TreeMap<>();
        messages.put(Integer.MIN_VALUE, new DefaultInputHandler()); //everything
        messages.put(1, new LowInputHandler()); //values from 1..9
        messages.put(10, new HighInputHandler()); //values after 10
        messages.put(15, new DefaultInputHandler()); //everything
       
        System.out.println(messages.floorEntry(7).getValue().getMessage()); //LowInputHandler.getMessage()
        System.out.println(messages.floorEntry(11).getValue().getMessage()); //DefaultInputHandler.getMessage()
        System.out.println(messages.floorEntry(15).getValue().getMessage()); //DefaultInputHandler.getMessage()

---

In this case it would be:

Code:

---

messages.floorEntry(input).getValue()

---

Update again: Try without any sort of conditional such as x > y!

You're taking his advice too literally. Any pattern you would use ultimately will contain conditional logic.

I think the suggestion he was ultimately trying to point to you was that you should be mindful of how you design your software. Leverage common software design patterns to make your code more robust.

But to answer your question:

Code:

---

switch(input) { case 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 -> handleLow() default-> handleHigh() }

---

would technically answer your question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarrySnow [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

You're taking his advice too literally. Any pattern you would use ultimately will contain conditional logic.

I think the suggestion he was ultimately trying to point to you was that you should be mindful of how you design your software.

But to answer your question:

Code:

---

switch(input) { case 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 -> handleLow() default-> handleHigh() }

---

would technically answer your question.

---

Re-read the original thread, it was pure curiosity. I'm most likely not personally ever going to follow this advice however there are actually some people that passionately hate IF statements. Arguably, intelligent ones too.

There's supposedly campaigns that express death to if statements "anti if'ers".

As for your code, that's one way! Not sure it would be feasible if the condition was if (n > 100)

Just updated the thread with my solution!

Code:

---

NavigableMap<Integer, InputHandler> messages = new TreeMap<>();
        messages.put(Integer.MIN_VALUE, new DefaultInputHandler()); //everything
        messages.put(1, new LowInputHandler()); //values from 1..9
        messages.put(10, new HighInputHandler()); //values after 10
        messages.put(15, new DefaultInputHandler()); //everything
       
        System.out.println(messages.floorEntry(7).getValue().getMessage()); //LowInputHandler.getMessage()
        System.out.println(messages.floorEntry(11).getValue().getMessage()); //DefaultInputHandler.getMessage()
        System.out.println(messages.floorEntry(15).getValue().getMessage()); //DefaultInputHandler.getMessage()

---

'excellent way' :hm:

Let's go for real hacky:

Code:

---

import java.util.function.IntConsumer;

public class Test {

    private static final int HIGH_VALUE = 10;

    public static void main(String... args) {
        int input = 9;
        operate(input);
    }

    private static void operate(int input) {
        IntConsumer lowInput = (int i) -> System.out.println("The low number is: " + i);
        IntConsumer highInput = (int i) -> System.out.println("The high number is: " + i);
        IntConsumer[] consumers = {lowInput, highInput};
        consumers[(~(input - HIGH_VALUE) & 0x80000000) >>> 31].accept(input);
    }
}

---

Just for fun, I reimplemented this in x86

Code:

---

HIGH_VALUE equ 10

global  _main
extern  _printf

section .text
_main:
    mov eax,3 ; Input value
    mov edi,eax
    sub eax,HIGH_VALUE
    neg eax
    and eax,0x80000000
    shr eax,31
    mov ecx,[jmp_table+eax*4]
    push edi
    jmp ecx
    retn
is_low:
    push low
    jmp operate
is_high:
    push high
operate:
    push message
    call _printf
    add esp,12
    retn
jmp_table:
    dd is_low
    dd is_high
low:
    db 'low', 0
high:
    db 'high', 0
message:
    db 'The %s input is %d.', 10, 0

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dread [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Let's go for real hacky:

Code:

---

import java.util.function.IntConsumer;

public class Test {

    private static final int HIGH_VALUE = 10;

    public static void main(String... args) {
        int input = 9;
        operate(input);
    }

    private static void operate(int input) {
        IntConsumer lowInput = (int i) -> System.out.println("The low number is: " + i);
        IntConsumer highInput = (int i) -> System.out.println("The high number is: " + i);
        IntConsumer[] consumers = {lowInput, highInput};
        consumers[(~(input - HIGH_VALUE) & 0x80000000) >>> 31].accept(input);
    }
}

---

---

I love it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suic [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

'excellent way' :hm:

---

It's essentially a hashmap but with range. Hopefully switch statements will soon support ranges though.

Code:

---

Map<Boolean, Runnable> actionMap = new HashMap<>();
actionMap.put(true, () -> handleHigh());
actionMap.put(false, () -> handleLow());
actionMap.get(input > 10).run();

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arham [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Code:

---

Map<Boolean, Runnable> actionMap = new HashMap<>();
actionMap.put(true, () -> handleHigh());
actionMap.put(false, () -> handleLow());
actionMap.get(input > 10).run();

---

---

Still using a conditional statement!

Code:

---

val result = Option(getUserInput())
  .filter(n => n > 10)
  .map(n => handleHigh())
  .orElse(handleLow())

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiissmyswagb [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Still using a conditional statement!

---

You said without if-statements, not conditionals. Moreover, it isn't a statement, it's an expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arham [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

You said without if-statements, not conditionals. Moreover, it isn't a statement, it's an expression.

---

It's conditional on input but I've updated the thread!

Code:

---

Runnable[] runnables = {() -> handleHigh()};
try {
    runnables[Math.min(0, index - 10)].run();
} catch(Exception e) {
    handleLow();
}

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arham [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Code:

---

Runnable[] runnables = {() -> handleHigh()};
try {
    runnables[Math.min(0, index - 10)].run();
} catch(Exception e) {
    handleLow();
}

---

---

That works!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiissmyswagb [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

That works!

---

source openjdk: [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Code:

---

    public static int min(int a, int b) {
        return (a <= b) ? a : b;
    }

---

Basically just an IF...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocatus [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

source openjdk: [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Code:

---

    public static int min(int a, int b) {
        return (a <= b) ? a : b;
    }

---

Basically just an IF...

---

So the point is to write the code yourself without IFS or conditionals. We don't care if any frameworks, libraries etc use them as long as we're not using them.

Sounds like the kind of guy that spends half of the day overthinking simple solutions.

interestingly all of the solutions so far are way worse than using a simple if statement, so if the senior devs intention was to demonstrate their clear superiority they did a good iob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Cape [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

interestingly all of the solutions so far are way worse than using a simple if statement, so if the senior devs intention was to demonstrate their clear superiority they did a good iob

---

100% agree

this thread is nonsense, either ur senior dev is stupid or u didn't understand his point properly, but avoiding conditional checks for a performance gain, which in most cases (see OP's self called 'excellent solution' code for example) will only make things worse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savions [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

100% right, what kind of senior dev we talking about because anyone can be a senior these days with how corporate works lmao

OT: this thread is nonsense, either ur senior dev is stupid or u didn't understand his point properly, but avoiding conditional checks for a performance gain, which in most cases (see OP's self called 'excellent solution' code for example) will only make things worse

---

I think Harry is probably on the mark about his senior dev wanting him to be mindful of design patterns rather than just passing everything off in mindless control flow statements, but idk why anyone would have an inherent dislike for if statements, they're just simple control branching and as we see here the alternatives are usually shit.

Believe the thread was more about coming up with interesting ways to avoid an if-statement rather than coming up with better / more elegant solutions (because we're all aware that it's easier to just do a conditional branch).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savions [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

100% agree

this thread is nonsense, either ur senior dev is stupid or u didn't understand his point properly, but avoiding conditional checks for a performance gain, which in most cases (see OP's self called 'excellent solution' code for example) will only make things worse

---

I'm pretty sure you must of skipped part where I mentioned that it isn't something I would personally do, but the point was to show that anti-ifers do exist and the rest of this thread is more of a coding challenge. Hence why everyone is getting creative.

As for my example, the use of polymorphism provides a direct application flow over a conditional one hence why I referred it to excellent. But everybody on this community knows that using an IF is better.

I'm pretty sure the "anti-iffers" in reference are not against using conditionals, rather strive to write more generic code outside of their business logic, which is something a lot of amateur developers fall victim to. It just boils down to more fluid design.

Developing any application without conditional checks is borderline psychotic.

You could write it like this

Quote:

---

*� X� =*� X� t6*� Z� t6**� X� x�

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister Maggot [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

I'm pretty sure the "anti-iffers" in reference are not against using conditionals, rather strive to write more generic code outside of their business logic, which is something a lot of amateur developers fall victim to. It just boils down to more fluid design.

Developing any application without conditional checks is borderline psychotic.

---

That's partially right however, if's are conditional statements and there are people who are very strong against conditionals in general although the people that hate GOTO's are much more common.

At this point though, this thread was just ended up being more of a challenge.

Code:

---

((input > 10) && !(handleHigh())) || (handleLow())

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoomScape [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Code:

---

((input > 10) && !(handleHigh())) || (handleLow())

---

---

He said no conditionals. Also he never said handleHigh or handleLow return boolean types.

yeah surely he's just generally referring to using something like strategy pattern. conditionals of some sort are unavoidable

Code:

---

val highValueStrategy = { num: Int -> println("high number is $num") }
val lowValueStrategy = { num: Int -> println("low number is $num") }

object UserInputStrategyFactory {
    fun getStrategy(value: Int) = when {
        value > 10 -> highValueStrategy
        else -> lowValueStrategy
    }
}

fun getUserInput() = (9..11).random()

fun main() {
    val input = getUserInput()
    val strategy = UserInputStrategyFactory.getStrategy(input)
    strategy.invoke(input)
}

---

that senior developer sounds like the kind of 70 year old bloke to be in the c++ committe voting against std::embed

You didn't specify a programming language, so here's a Haskell solution :)

Code:

---

handle 1 = handleLow 1
handle 2 = handleLow 2
handle 3 = handleLow 3
handle 4 = handleLow 4
handle 5 = handleLow 5
handle 6 = handleLow 6
handle 7 = handleLow 7
handle 8 = handleLow 8
handle 9 = handleLow 9
handle i = handleHigh i

---