Skip to main content

Anonymous Functions vs Named Functions for Node.js

I am a fan of anonymous functions, it just makes like easier and I find the syntax of passing functions around more expressive. Only problem I have found though is that when you have a bug, anonymous functions can give you a bit of a headache when tracking down what went wrong.


In the first example createServer is passed an anonymous function that gets called back. If something goes wrong you the error message is something like:

C:\Node\imageshare\server.js:14
        route(pathName);
        ^
TypeError: undefined is not a function
    at Server. (C:\Node\imageshare\server.js:14:9)
    at Server.emit (events.js:70:17)
    at HTTPParser.onIncoming (http.js:1610:12)
    at HTTPParser.parserOnHeadersComplete [as onHeadersComplete] (http.js:91:29)

    at Socket.ondata (http.js:1506:22)
    at TCP.onread (net.js:374:27)
Which although is easy enough to track down in this example, you can see that the name of the function is not listed because it doesn't have one... Server.. As the project and file is tiny, it's not the end of the world. However in a world of call backs with anonymous methods I wonder if this would begin to get very tricky in a complex example. 
In the 2nd example, the function that's passed into createServer is named. When the same error happens the name of the function is given....
C:\Node\imageshare\server.js:13
        route(pathname);
              ^
ReferenceError: pathname is not defined
    at Server.process (C:\Node\imageshare\server.js:13:15)
    at Server.emit (events.js:70:17)
    at HTTPParser.onIncoming (http.js:1610:12)
    at HTTPParser.parserOnHeadersComplete [as onHeadersComplete] (http.js:91:29)

    at Socket.ondata (http.js:1506:22)
    at TCP.onread (net.js:374:27)

I wonder if this would make for a much easier life in the long run?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Creating star ratings in HTML and Javascript

I'd searched around a little for some shortcuts to help in doing this but I couldn't find anything satisfactory that included the ability to pull the rating off again for saving. I'd ended up coming up with this rather cheeky solution. Hopefully it helps you too! This is my first post in a while (I stopped blogging properly about 8 years ago!) It's strange coming back to it. Blogger feels very crusty and old by todays standards too.

Make your objects immutable by default

More about the Good Dojo In my post last week , I discussed creating objects that are instantiated safely. Please go back and read if you are interested. At the end of the post, I mentioned that I'd also written the class so it was immutable when instantiated. This is important!!! I feel like a broken record in repeating this but I am sure at the time of writing your code, you aren't modifying your object all over the place and so are safe in the belief that protecting against mutability is overkill. Please remember though, your code could be around for a hell of a long time. You aren't writing your code for now... you are writing for the next fool that comes along (including you) . Nothing is more upsetting that coming back to fix a bug on some wonderfully crafted code to say "Who has butchered my code?!", but often you were involved at the start of the process. You made the code easy to modify, allowing objects to be used / reused / modified without thi

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second