Is my layout of the if/else statement reasonable?

It feels clumsy to me to spread the termination condition over the first three lines of the function. Can I squeeze it into one or two lines? Would it help if I used the ternary operator? How can I make the JavaScript more idiomatic (while still using recursion)? Any other improvements?

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

// Unit tests
var assert = function(code) {
  if (eval(code)) {
    document.write(code + " test passed.\n");
  }
  else {
    document.write(code + " test FAILED.\n");
  };
};

assert("!containsA('')");
assert("containsA('A')");
assert("!containsA('a')");
assert("containsA('HAH!')");
assert("!containsA('carrots')");

I have simplified details that are not relevant to my question. This simpler version attempts to reimplement String.prototype.contains(). If I convert my string to an array I could use Array.prototype.find() but my hunch is that would be less readable.

Is my layout of the if/else statement reasonable?

It feels clumsy to me to spread the termination condition over the first three lines of the function. Can I squeeze it into one or two lines? Would it help if I used the ternary operator? How can I make the JavaScript more idiomatic (while still using recursion)? Any other improvements?

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

// Unit tests
var assert = function(code) {
  if (eval(code)) {
    document.write(code + " test passed.<br>");
  }
  else {
    document.write(code + " test FAILED.<br>");
  };
};

assert("!containsA('')");
assert("containsA('A')");
assert("!containsA('a')");
assert("containsA('HAH!')");
assert("!containsA('carrots')");

I have simplified details that are not relevant to my question. This simpler version attempts to reimplement String.prototype.contains(). If I convert my string to an array I could use Array.prototype.find() but my hunch is that would be less readable.

Is my layout of the if/else statement reasonable?

It feels clumsy to me to spread the termination condition over the first three lines of the function. Can I squeeze it into one or two lines? Would it help if I used the ternary operator? How can I make the JavaScript more idiomatic? Any other improvements?

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

// Unit tests
var assert = function(code) {
  if (eval(code)) {
    document.write(code + " test passed.\n");
  }
  else {
    document.write(code + " test FAILED.\n");
  };
};

assert("!containsA('')");
assert("containsA('A')");
assert("!containsA('a')");
assert("containsA('HAH!')");
assert("!containsA('carrots')");

I have simplified details that are not relevant to my question. This simpler version attempts to reimplement String.prototype.contains(). If I convert my string to an array I could use Array.prototype.find() but my hunch is that would be less readable.

Is my layout of the if/else statement reasonable?

It feels clumsy to me to spread the termination condition over the first three lines of the function. Can I squeeze it into one or two lines? Would it help if I used the ternary operator? How can I make the JavaScript more idiomatic (while still using recursion)? Any other improvements?

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

var containsA = function(sentence) {
  if (sentence.length == 0) {
    return false;
  }
  else {
    return sentence[0] === 'A' || containsA(sentence.substr(1));
  };
};

// Unit tests
var assert = function(code) {
  if (eval(code)) {
    document.write(code + " test passed.\n");
  }
  else {
    document.write(code + " test FAILED.\n");
  };
};

assert("!containsA('')");
assert("containsA('A')");
assert("!containsA('a')");
assert("containsA('HAH!')");
assert("!containsA('carrots')");

I have simplified details that are not relevant to my question. This simpler version attempts to reimplement String.prototype.contains(). If I convert my string to an array I could use Array.prototype.find() but my hunch is that would be less readable.