DEV Community

Bye Bye, Try-Catch Blocks: Meet JavaScript's Safe Assignment Operator Proposal😉

Dharmendra Kumar on August 20, 2024

Introduction JavaScript error handling is about to get a major upgrade. The new ECMAScript Safe Assignment Operator Proposal (?=) is her...

Read full post

Jon Randy 🎖️ • Aug 20 • Edited

It won't be soon (if at all) - this is only a draft proposal that hasn't even been accepted for consideration yet, let alone adoption

leob • Aug 20 • Edited

Lol the "elephant in the room" - the article does not mention anything about where this proposal is documented, nor about its expected timeline ...

"Bye Bye, Try-Catch Blocks" - that's highly premature, to put it mildly ...

"JavaScript error handling is about to get a major upgrade" - is rather misleading ...

P.S. and if you think critically about it for a moment, then you'll probably conclude that the advertised advantages might actually be disadvantages in the context of JS ... I see more negative views of this proposal than positive ones here:

reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/1...

I'm also not really convinced ...

Andrew Bone • Aug 21 • Edited

If you look at the syntax votes ?= is not even the front runner.

(also total votes add up to 666)

Anthony • Aug 21

Can you link the details of the above? Wondering what try as throw means.

Andrew Bone • Aug 21

Here's the issue.

github.com/arthurfiorette/proposal...

Anthony • Aug 21

Thanks! I love the lively discussion going on over there.

Eugen • Oct 1

Beast number :D

Drew Schillinger • Aug 21

Dang. I'm looking forward to the 101 almost-the-same-but-missing-nuanced implementations that npm packages or each framework will introduce...

Andrew Bone • Aug 21

If you're really adverse to the try/catch block you can make a helper function that does the same as the safe assignment operator. I really don't see it getting much traction unfortunately, especially seeing as it's such an easy function.

/**
 * execute a callback and return an result/error array
 *
 * @param {callback} function to be executed
*/
const safePromise = async (callback) => {
  try {
    const res = await callback();

    return [null, res]
  } catch (error) {
    return [error, null];
  }
}

// Example use
const [error, data] = await safePromise(() => fetch("https://api.example.com"));
if (error) handle(error);

BlobKat • Aug 22

You don't need a callback, this can be done by simply awaiting the value (Promise object)

JoelBonetR 🥇 • Aug 22 • Edited

What you don't need is precisely await. Here's an example of this:

/**
 * Fetch implementation details, you could do it in any different way that's suitable to your project
 */
const fetcher = async (config: ServiceConfiguration): Promise<ServiceError | ServiceResponse> => {
  try {
    return fetch(config.target, { method: config.operation, headers: config.headers }).then((res) => res.json());
  } catch (error: RequestError) {
    return { svcError: error, ...config } as ServiceError;
  }
};

/**
 * This doesn't even need to be a "hook" it would work with a different name being a normal function.
 */
export const useService = async (config: ServiceOperation, setter?: Dispatch<SetStateAction<ServiceResponse>>) => {
  fetcher(config).then((res) => {
    if (res?.hasOwnProperty('svcError')) return Promise.reject(res);
    else if (setter) setter(res);
    else return Promise.resolve(res);
  });
};

This works pretty well when loading multiple stuff at the same time so you don't block the thread on every single request by awaiting the response before continuing with the next one; meaning that you can call useService in a promise.all or promise.allSettled and expect all requests to be launched at the same time, in parallel and capture the responses seamlessly (and asynchronously as -hopefully- intended).

This can be used along any framework, library or with Vanilla JS if you are eager to toy around with object proxies or any other methodology you prefer. This is, though, a simplification of what I have on a Next (React) project as you may have noticed by the Dispatch type hint. Following that, an usage example would be:

const [shoppingHistory, setShoppingHistory] = useState();

useEffect( () => {
  const config: ServiceOperation = getServiceConfig(); // implementation details

  useService(config, setShoppingHistory);
}, [userId]);

useEffect(()=>{
  console.log('shopping history has been loaded');
}, [shoppingHistory]);

We're coding in a "reactive" manner pretty much since Angular JS first came out (14 years ago 🤯), try to avoid breaking the asynchrony unless it's completely necessary; instead let things react to other things when they find suit, simply let it flow! 😎

As a bonus advice, try not to use await in the same instruction where a then is present and vice-versa unless you know very well what you are doing.

Samuel Rouse • Aug 20 • Edited

This is what the title example looks like with promises.

function getData() {
  return fetch("https://api.example.com/data").catch(handleError);
}

The proposal reminds me of the "nodeback" error-first callback style before the majority of the asynchronous actions adopted promises. I prefer promises, and dislike the need for try/catch blocks and async function declarations that come with await. This proposal is a better solution than try/catch blocks, but it seems to me like we're 60% of the way back to a promise chain but still with more characters and more mental parsing.

someFunction().then().catch().finally();

Also, there is no need for a finally equivalent with Safe Assignment because we've eliminated the scoping. You can use plain conditions.

if (error) {
  // .catch() equivalent
} else {
  // .then() equivalent
}
// .finally() equivalent

Thank you for putting the article together. I appreciate the work on it, even if I don't like proposal. 😅

saad zahem • Aug 20

I agree with you but there is one thing though. finally block is meant to be executed regardless of whether your code succeed, get an error and handle it successfully, get an error and throw it again, or throw its own error. It is a misconception that a finally block is equivalent to the code that follows the try-catch-else block.

if (error) {
  // .catch() equivalent
} else {
  // .then() equivalent
  throw Error();
}
// This will not be executed like a finally block

Instead, I suggest this modified solution.

if (error) {
  // .catch() equivalent
  var errorToThrow = null;
} else {
  // .then() equivalent
  var errorToThrow = Error();
}
// .finally() equivalent, executed in all cases
if (errorToThrow !== null) throw errorToThrow;

Finally, finally block is used to free allocated resources or to close a file so we make sure that it is not interrupted by any event.

Tamjid Ahmed • Aug 26

i n d i a n c l i c k b a i t.

Richard Holguín • Aug 29

From the producers of unnecessary copy/pasted Medium post, comes...

Amirreza Farzan (jexroid) • Sep 4 • Edited

it seems like javascript is learning something from GO:

file, err := os.Create(filepath.Join(projectPath, ".air.toml"))
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }

golang doesn't support try-catch blocks at all.

dev procedure • Aug 21

Problem: Try-catch blocks can clutter code and disrupt the flow of logic.
Solution: The ?= operator makes error handling more intuitive, keeping your code linear and easy to follow.

100% FALSE and B.S.
Try-Catch is straight-forward language.
The ?= is CONFUSI(NG to begin with.

The ?= should be canned and thrown away.
It's look stupid and Go, Rust, and Swift, are not known to easy or that popular.
BUt lots of HYPE...

The ?= is just WANNBE nonsense.

Rafa Rodríguez • Aug 23

It's still a draft. In the meantime you can do this:

const attempt = (operation) => {
   let result = null;
   let error = null;

   try {
      result = operation(); 
   } catch(err) {
      error = err;
   }

   return [error, result];
};

const attemptAsync = async (operation) => {
   let result = null;
   let error = null;

   try {
      result = await operation();
   } catch(err) {
      error = err;
   }

   return [error, result];
};

𒎏Wii 🏳️‍⚧️ • Aug 20

So basically, JavaScript has found yet another way of being "kinda like Lua, except worse"?

Krzysztof • Aug 20 • Edited

What about this:

const result = await myfunction()
    .catch(()=>{ 
       // handle error
    })

Daniel Macák • Aug 21

The title is super misleading since it makes it sound like this feature is like ECMA Stage 3 which is totally untrue. Claiming "this proposal could soon become a standard tool in every JavaScript developer’s toolkit" is very naive; just remember how much it took for Decorators to come to Stage 3, it's been an eternity.

As for the proposal itself, yes it improves error handling in some areas but to me it looks like it makes other areas worse, like bubbling up errors would become way more manual with it.

Mostafa • Aug 20

Generally handling errors in software a critical topic and I don't think what you just shared with us will be a part of Ecma

Md Kawsar Islam Yeasin • Sep 3

It's like null, error block of GO

Syed Muhammad Ali Raza • Aug 21

Techninjax • Aug 20

hmmm will i say this is better or harder

Najmus Sakib • Sep 16

Misleading title

cutmasta-kun • Aug 30

Yes, please! :3 I love this style of error handling in go.

Ankit Rattan • Aug 21

Well! JS is now competing with Python in short syntax! 😊😁

Akash Kava • Aug 22

If accepted, this will include nightmare in debugging, in an explicit try-catch, author and maintaner both are aware of what is happening, aim of developer is not to write short code, but maintanable code.

If I am looking at my own code after one year, I would usually search for try keyword and investigate on it. Put a breakpoint and see what error is thrown and why. I don't think there should be any proposal which would consume an exception and return something else.

Peter Vivo • Aug 22 • Edited

Until ?= operator did not pass the proposal state, this is just a fairy tale. I know good to play with proposal things, sometimes it is really worth. My favorite is the pipeline operator |> which is really missing from JS because give natural solution to chaining any one parameter function.

Alain D'Ettorre • Aug 22

Although this is very far from being implemented, I believe it could be worth it. The main problem I see is that Go enforces you to handle errors like this, the whole standard library returns multiple values with error being the second value (usually), people are encouraged to do the same and the syntax allows you to return multiple values, also no exceptions that "bubble" exist.

JS, instead, relies on 20+ years of Exception-based programming and having an alternative like this seems a good way to fragment code once again

intrnl • Aug 21 • Edited

This is awful, I'd much prefer do expressions to come around, which would set up a precedence for try expressions

const messages = try {
  await loadMessages(lang);
}  catch (err) {
  reportError(err);
  await loadMessages("en");
}

This is a lot better than replicating Go's semantics.

Amjad Mohamed • Oct 14

What about the rust like:

const messages = await loadMessages(lang) catch (err) {
  reportError(err);
  await loadMessages("en");
};

I, Pavlov • Aug 21

Does anyone really think that this

const obj = {
     [Symbol.result]() {
       return [
         null,
         { [Symbol.result]: () => [new Error("Nested error"), null] }
       ];
     },
   };

is better than nested try-catch?

Placing the error first in the [error, data] ?= structure ensures that errors are handled before processing data, reducing the risk of ignoring errors.

What prevents a developer from doing this:

const [, data] ?= someFunction();
useDataIgnoringError(data);

Samuel Braun • Sep 21

Not defending this solution as there are probably better ones but Symbol object keys are already what makes for loops working. It doesnt mean the developer needs to write it as it would get abstracted away just like an array abstracts away Symbol.iterator(). For the second its more clear/obvious that [, error] does something that is considered bad practice whereas [data] doesn't.

sschneider-ihre-pvs • Aug 27

You can today use a similar construct without the operator of course since js does not allow custom operators or operator overloading except in a compiler like svelte $: for example.
The concept really resembles the Either Monad and libs like effect.website/ really push this in a good way

Christian Paez • Aug 23 • Edited

Interesting proposal, however I still prefer standard try catch blocks, to me const [error, response] seems ugly, no reason to declare those as parts of an array.

Joey Mezzacappa • Aug 23

That example doesn't work if error is falsy.

Guillermo Liss • Aug 22

I personally prefer this way to the try-catch. I hope eventually this becomes part of js.

Liem Le Hoang Duc • Aug 29 • Edited

So, I'm trying to say that go error handling is such, and now seeing this on JS? Hope this proposal never get approved. Try/Catch/Finally is not evil or bad. and if (error) is such.

Ali Raza • Sep 27

The ?= operator is not a direct replacement for try...catch in JavaScript.
While ?= offers a concise way to handle null or undefined values, it doesn't provide the same error-handling capabilities as try...catch.
Here's a breakdown of their key differences:
?= Operator:

Purpose: Handles null or undefined values in expressions.
Syntax: variable ?= expression
Behavior: Assigns expression to variable only if variable is null or undefined.
Use cases: Default values, conditional assignments, avoiding null reference errors. try...catch Block:
Purpose: Catches and handles exceptions that occur during code execution.
Syntax:
try {
// Code that might throw an exception
} catch (error) {
// Code to handle the exception
} finally {
// Optional code that always executes, regardless of exceptions
}
Behavior: Executes the code within the try block. If an exception occurs, the catch block is executed with the exception object as an argument. The finally block (if present) is always executed, even if an exception is thrown.
Use cases: Handling runtime errors, preventing program crashes, providing graceful error recovery.
Key Points:
?= is primarily for handling null or undefined values, while try...catch is for handling a broader range of exceptions.
?= is more concise and often preferred for simple null checks, but try...catch is essential for more complex error handling scenarios.
Combining ?= with other techniques like optional chaining (?.) can help mitigate null reference errors in many cases.

zain64-design • Aug 21

github.com/arthurfiorette/proposal...

arthur.run/proposal-safe-assignmen...

ivkeMilioner • Oct 24

This is a clickbait text that is false and has already been debunked 100 times.

XPD • Oct 1 • Edited

2 nd proposal is better. Has more votes. Since ?= is syntactic sugar, keywords are better than operator overload to reduce conflict and changing core language.

Dave Mcsavvy • Sep 28

Sounds like a cool feature ✨

Alexander Antonyuk • Sep 7 • Edited

Sweet!

I like this approach, like in Golang.

Lewis Donovan • Aug 28

This is never getting anywhere near ECMA

ProgKids • Aug 21

Awesome post!

dev procedure • Aug 21

It's a stupid proposal as ?= is confusing and Try-Catch is very straight-forward and WORKS

Mustafa • Aug 26 • Edited

Right?? Since the Try-Catch structure is a common way of catching errors in programming, it also improves code readability for others who read your code.

Absolutely no need for fancy things.

Abdul Aziz Al Basyir • Aug 26

i used to

const result = await fetch().catch(e => {});

console.log(result)

Daniel Rodríguez Rivero • Aug 21

Awful. JS should find its way, rather than copying the bad implementation of good ideas (better error handling is needed but the way golang does it is awful)

Martin Baun • Aug 21

Reminds me of await-to-js, which is pretty neat in my opinion.

Castric Laem • Aug 21

This is obviously written by ChatGPT. The whole article screams prompt engineering and a poor attempt at making this readable. Which means the author has no idea what half of this article means.