const max = (a, b, c) => ([a, b, c].sort().pop());
if i'm writing something SOOO performance critical that i can't afford the extra One comparison that comes with a sort i'd write it as
function max(a, b, c) {
if (a > b) {
return Math.max(a, c);
}
return Math.max(b, c);
}
because at that point you're doing too many things for it to make sense as a one-liner
this is all assuming Math.max can't take a third argument, or an array argument or something. which seems to be the assumption made in the premise
@monorail oh my fucking god Math.max can take a third argument in JavaScript fuck me
@wallhackio well there you have it
@monorail when i do things like this aesc calls them "caleb solutions"
@wallhackio @monorail no you call them that
@wallhackio @monorail i thought i got it from you lol
@wallhackio @monorail anyway there is always [a, b, c].reduce(Math.max)
@aescling @wallhackio i thought of this as well but i had it in my head that the time complexity was the same as sorting, which now that i've thought about it for one second is clearly untrue
@aescling @wallhackio but i'm still, like
it's three things. there's three of them
@wallhackio @monorail though actually you may need to explicitly wrap Math.max like (x,y) => Math.max(x,y) because reduce supplies extra args