If they don't then they need to learn.
You can't say don't use specific language features because some devs can't be bothered to learn them.
“You can't say don't use specific language features because some devs can't be bothered to learn them.”
My view on this has flip flopped several times during my career. I think every spec has some dusty corners that most people don’t know about, but when a situation calls for it knowing about some obscure features can make your code far more readable. Sometimes it’s better in the long run to train your team about a feature they might not know about rather than code for the lowest common denominator. This thread is a great example - I spent my first decade of programming scared of chained terneries. One day I spent a couple of hours goofing around with them, playing with different ways I could write my code and internalising their semantics. Now they seem fine. I wish I’d taken the time to do that years ago. Ten years being afraid saved me 2 hours of time learning.
One of the best programmers I worked with reads the specs of tools he uses for fun. He says specs seem daunting but you can read them in far less time than you think and there’s always some fascinating stuff in there. My HTML knowledge got way better working with him - and its funny seeing how many tools struggle with correct HTML because the authors didn’t bother actually learning it.
Some more examples: html void elements, html/body tag auto insertion, JS tagged break/continue, C/JS/etc’s comma operator.
If something is so detailed that it gets too long to be quickly readable I extract it into a separate properly-named function.
I'm definitely drawn to using all the tricks of a language and I feel like it would be a great way to show off how smart I am, but I'm not sure its worth it for sacrificing comprehension and ease of adding stuff in later. Maybe if everyone that will ever work or use that code is top-notch, that would be a dream.
It's not whether some constructs are parts of the language (languages can have any crap in), it's whether some constructs are bad, confusing, and should be avoided (whether you know what they do or not).
Is there never going to be any level of depth in a ternary statement which you will think is perhaps too great, and want to switch to some more verbose syntax?
You could say that most programmers are crap, but those crap programmers seem to make the world work, so they must be doing something right :-)
Because they are
> but those crap programmers seem to make the world work
For certains value of "work". Most software is crap too and it's getting worse not better.