Replacing JavaScript Classes With The Module Design Pattern

Hi. My name is "Adam" and I'm a JavaScript developer. I've been class-free now, for... Oh, wait. I think I'm mixing up my meetings.

My regular readers (both of them) know that I get annoyed by the JS community's irrational fear of the class keyword. Some on here have even told me that I love classes. That's not actually true, but I understand why some jump to that conclusion. Because unlike so many other JS devs, I don't start spitting and cursing any time I even see a class keyword in code.

But I'm here to tell you that, for some time now, I just haven't written any classes in JavaScript. At all. My React code is all function/Hooks-based. And I'm OK with it. Really. I don't even miss classes.

I'm happy moving along without classes for a few key reasons. First of all, the class keyword is nothing but syntactic sugar in JS. It doesn't provide any new functionality that you didn't already have in the language. It just makes some of that functionality... cleaner.

What do I mean by "cleaner"? Well... call me cranky, but I don't ever wanna write more .prototype-style objects, where I'm jumping through JS hoops to accomplish that which just fits under a class paradigm. But with "modern" ECMAScript standards, you really don't need to bother with all that .prototype stuff anymore. Specifically, I'm talking about the Module Design Pattern.

What IS It??

I know this will feel a bit basic for many of you, but first let's define what I mean when I say "Module Design Pattern". Like most discussions about design patterns, the literal definition of "Module Design Pattern" can be a bit... fuzzy. And quite frankly, trying to come to a hard-and-fast consensus can be extremely boring.

Wikipedia defines the module pattern as:

A design pattern used to implement the concept of software modules, defined by modular programming, in a programming language with incomplete direct support for the concept.

Wow. That's incredibly... unhelpful. Impossibly vague. Pretty much useless.

So let me show you what I understand to be a "Module Design Pattern", specifically as it applies to JavaScript.

export const MyModule = () => {
   return {};
};

That's... it. No, really. That's it. Sure, most real-life examples will have significantly more detail to them. But the example above actually qualifies.

It's really just a function - that returns an object. (And yeah - the function could also return an array. That still qualifies. In JavaScript, an array is an object.)

You may be thinking that it's just a plain ol' function with some kinda-modern syntax (arrow function) and the modern export convention added to it. And - you'd be right.

You may also notice that I named the module in Pascal-case, which is not part of any standard for the Module Design Pattern. But I'll explain later why I do that.

If you don't have some sorta ingrained affinity for the code sample above, maybe it's because you're not a React developer?? Lemme explain...

React & the Module Design Pattern - A Perfect Partnership

In the horrible, no-good, bad-ol' days, we used to write React components like this:

export class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <div>Here is some JSX</div>
    );
  }
}

I hate even having to type that sample. It's dirty right?? You probably feel kinda ashamed having even looked at it. And god forbid if you actually wrote that kinda code... It's the kinda stuff you wanna hide from your future grandkids. I'm actually sorry that I even showed it to you here.

Thankfully, nowadays we've evolved out of the Dark Ages. We no longer write shameful stuff like that example above. Now we write our components like this:

export const MyComponent = () => {
  return <>
    <div>Here is some JSX</div>
  </>
}

Ohhh, mannn!! Just look at that gorgeous code! It's obviously so much better! Thank god we've seen the error of our ways - and repented! Now we write our components in a way that looks a heckuva lot like... a Module Design Pattern.

(NOTE: The above example returns a bit of JSX, and in React we normally refer to this whole block of code as a "component". But a block of JSX will yield a typeof... object. So when you write a component like the one above, you're really just creating a function - that returns an object.)

And remember when I said that I (usually) write my Module-Design-Pattern functions with Pascal-case? Well, React components are named in Pascal-case. And if you look up "component" and "module" in most dictionaries, you'll have a hard time distinguishing the difference between those two terms.

Of course, I don't always use Pascal-casing. I use traditional Camel-casing when I'm writing... Hooks. Like this:

export const useSomething = () => {
  const [statefulValue, setStatefulValue] = useState('');

  return {
    statefulValue,
  }
}

In this case, we're not dealing with JSX, but this still fits perfectly in the Module Design Pattern. We're exporting a function, which returns values that presumably represent some aspect of its own internal "state".

In other words, AFAIK, nearly every single custom Hook I've ever seen complies with the (admittedly loose) standards of what comprises the "Module Design Pattern". For that matter, nearly every functional component in React also meets these standards.

BTW, if you think this is just some snarky takedown of functions-vs-classes, it's not. Because there are some tangible benefits of the Module Design Pattern. To understand what those are, we need to appreciate how JavaScript treats functions...

Functions: JavaScript's Magic Boxes

Ima be honest here: It took me a number of years before I really appreciated this about JS. In JS, functions are "first class citizens". What that means, in laymen's terms, is that they can be passed around like a string, or a number, or an object. In JS (or any other language that features functions as "first class citizens"), the function isn't a subroutine, it is a value in its own right.

What does that mean with regard to our Module Design Pattern???

Well, take another look at that dead-simple custom Hook above. It's returning an object. And that object could contain... basically anything - including functions. In other languages, can you think of something that also can contain functions?? (HINT: In other languages, those functions are typically called "methods".)

For example, in Java, a class is a template that allows you to create (instantiate) objects. In turn, those objects can contain... basically anything - including functions (methods).

In JS, the class is just syntactic sugar. But what is it syntactic sugar for??? Some people assume it's syntactic sugar for an object. But that's not quite right. class is just syntactic sugar for a function - one that returns an object (which in turn can contain... basically anything).

In fact, if you wanna waste a night diving deep down a JS rabbit hole, try writing a function that will determine whether the argument passed in is a function... or a class. It's... damn-near impossible.

Why did it take me a while to truly appreciate this?? Well... it's very easy (maybe even natural) to look at any given function and assume that it returns some kinda scalar value - a string, a number, ...whatever. Of course, I always understood that a function could also return objects, but I was still thinking of those objects in terms of scalar values (i.e., an object - that contains strings, or an array - that contains numbers).

But it may not be immediately apparent to all programmers that, in JS, it's perfectly natural to have a function that:

1. Holds other functions inside that function.
2. Uses some of those functions only for its own internal workings ("private").
3. Returns some of those functions to the caller ("public").

In other words, a JS function can pretty much perform all the operations that other devs, in other languages, call a class. And once you realize the power of JS's functions, you realize that JS's functions are classes - they're just classes in sheep's clothing.

To put this into a different context, I remember when jQuery first gained widespread adoption. And I'll be completely honest here - I thought it looked absolutely friggin foreign to me at the time. Because jQuery is basically an entire library that's built on the concept of anonymous functions. And at that point in my programming life, the idea of an anonymous function just didn't make any damn sense to me. (Like: "Why in the world would I want to write a function with NO NAME?? That I can't call again at some point in the future??? THIS FEESL LIKE INSANITY!!!")

Even once I got comfortable with jQuery's syntax, I didn't immediately appreciate the extent to which it was highlighting JS's use of functions as first-class citizens. Ironically, I didn't fully grasp some of jQuery's "lessons" until years after I'd stopped using it.

"Self-Aware" Functions

One of the key benefits of OOP objects is that they have a kinda "self-awareness" about them. No, I don't mean that they're gonna coordinate a counterstrike against humanity, leading to the Rise of the Machines. I mean that they can reveal things about themselves - and hide things about themselves.

But you don't need OOP to accomplish this. And this is where the Module Design Pattern shines.

Consider this example:

export class MyClass {
  externalVariable = 'foo';
  internalTrackingVariable = 'bar';

  doExternalProcessing() {
    // function to be called by the instantiator
  }

  doInternalProcessing() {
    // internal helper function
  }
}
const myInstance = new MyClass();

In this example, internalTrackingVariable and doInternalProcessing() seem like prime candidates to be "private". But myInstance has full access to them. That's... not ideal.

[NOTE 1: There is a proposal - that's not yet finalized - to add private variables to JS classes. But since it's still just a proposal, I'm not gonna spend any more time thinking about it here.]

[NOTE 2: It's perfectly possible to create "private" variables/methods inside a JS class. It's called a closure. But the syntax required for it is not really... "intuitive" and it doesn't really feel like it's part of the class spec in any way.]

Now let's look at the same example with a Module Design Pattern:

export const MyModule = () => {
  const externalVariable = 'foo';
  const internalTrackingVariable = 'bar';

  const doExternalProcessing = () => {
    // function to be called by the instantiator
  }

  const doInternalProcessing = () => {
    // internal helper function
  }

  return {
    doExternalProcessing,
    externalVariable,
  }
}
const myInstance = MyModule();

In the class example, everything is "public", unless we jump through some closure-hoops to ensure it's not so. But in the module example, everything is private, unless we specifically choose to expose it in the return object. Suddenly, controlling the "self-aware" aspects of the product object feels soooooo much easier.

IMHO, this is a huge argument in favor of the Module Design Pattern. If the MyModule caller tries to access myInstance.internalTrackingVariable they'll find that there is no internalTrackingVariable for them to reference.

This also has huge ramifications if we're trying to control the data integrity of our "class" members. Specifically, when I'm writing custom Hooks, I frequently employ this type of pattern:

export const useSomeHook = () => {
  const [counter, setCounter] = useState(0);

  const updateCounter = (newCounter = 0) => {
    // apply some validation to ensure that newCounter
    // can ONLY be a non-negative integer
    setCounter(newCounter);
  }

  return {
    counter,
    updateCounter,
  }
}

See what I did there? I have a regular-ol' state variable. And I'm exposing the value in the return object. But I'm not exposing the natural setter. Instead, I'm only exposing my custom update function, which will first ensure we have a "proper" value before setting a new counter value.

Of course, you could just expose setCounter in the return object. But this would mean that the caller could set the value of counter to -5. Or 'zero'. Or 'chocolate strawberry banana'. By only exposing my custom updater function, I can then ensure that counter is only ever set to a "logical" value.

Shutting Up The Sycophants

I've laid out some practical reasons why the Module Design Pattern can be useful. But I'll be honest: There are also some personal reasons why I've really gravitated toward this pattern over the last year-or-so. Specifically, it's a fabulous way to shut up the dyed-in-the-wool, mindless, Functional Programming fanboys who can't help but fill their diaper any time they're affronted with that horrible no-good class keyword.

Years ago, JS-types would see me using a class and they'd cry that I should be mimicking all of their .prototype and closure techniques. And I'd think, "Yeah, umm... nope. Not gonna be doing that."

Then when I started getting heavy into React, some people would complain that I should be writing more functional components - even though functional components were (at the time) handicapped with far less functionality. And I'd think, "Yeah, umm... nope. Not gonna be doing that."

Recently, I've had some people around me even complain that a simple utility class was somehow "wrong" because I had the audacity to deploy the JS class keyword. And I'd think, "Yeah, umm... nope. Not gonna be doing that."

But recently, I've been converting many of my remaining classes over to a Module Design Pattern. Because the Module Design Pattern can honestly do all of the same things. And it does it in a way that's syntactically just as elegant as a class. And it does it in a way that undercuts all the whiny complaints of the FP fanboys. So with that in mind, it's just easier... to switch.

Consider this example:

I have a utility class that I've written about previously. It's a wrapper for localStorage. It looks something like this:

class Local {
  clear = () => {}

  getItem = itemName => {}

  removeItem = itemName => {}

  setItem = (itemName, itemValue) => {} 
}
export const local = new Local();

Honestly??? I think this is a perfect use-case for a class. Nevertheless, I'd get the occasional comment from someone asking why I'd made it a horrible, no-good, unconscionable class. Some of those people even stated that it seemed like a logical use-case for a class!!! But that didn't stop them from wondering why I made it... a class!

To be frank, those kinda comments used to exasperate me. I mean, they'd basically admit that it made perfect sense as a class - and then they'd still whine about it being a class!!!

But at this point, I've basically solved this "problem". I recently turned this into an NPM package. And when I did, I used this syntax:

const Local = () => {
  const clear = () => {}

  const getItem = itemName => {}

  const removeItem = itemName => {}

  const setItem = (itemName, itemValue) => {}

  return {
    clear,
    getItem,
    removeItem,
    setItem,
  }
}
export const local = Local();

There! Are you happy now???