DEV Community

Discussion on: Nulling JavaScript

View post

Replies for: Is there a reason not to use a Try/Catch block? That seems a little more explicit, but I'm not sure, maybe that's not idiomatic for JavaScript. I...

Collapse
 
22samuelk profile image
Samuel • • Edited

What about...

const value = (() => {
 try {
   return object.x.y
 } catch (err) {
   return 'default'
 }
})()

Easy as that... cough

Collapse
 
22samuelk profile image
Samuel • • Edited

I mean, we could also do this (to get rid of the IIFE), but that's unfunctional, and I don't wanna use a let tbh.

let value
try {
  value = object.x.y
} catch (err) {
  value = 'default'
}

Another option would probably be this, but ew, async where we don't need it...

const value = await new Promise(resolve => resolve(object.x.y))
  .catch(err => 'default')

So yeah, maybe we do need this new operator, although I really am worried about handling probably-invalid data structures. I mean, isn't that an indicator we should probably write our code a different way? Maybe we should, for example, use another function to handle that specific input, which should be checked before that? I don't know, just speculating.

Thread Thread
 
kayis profile image
K •

yes, like I said model your data right and things get more robust.

The promis catching is nice and I prefer it, but sometimes await is nicer in a specific case and you have to try-catch, I guess ?. would be simpler then.