JavaScript developers, there’s a new way to handle errors without relying on messy, repetitive try-catch blocks. Meet the Safe Assignment Operator (?=), an upcoming feature that promises to make error handling in JavaScript simpler, cleaner, and easier to manage. Let’s break down how it works and why it’s worth using.
The Problem with Try-Catch Blocks
Traditionally, JavaScript uses try-catch blocks to handle errors, especially in functions that involve async operations. But when you have multiple layers of try-catch, the code quickly becomes complex, hard to read, and harder to maintain.
The Solution: The ?= Operator
The new ?= operator provides a simple and effective alternative. Instead of writing separate try-catch blocks for each error, ?= lets you handle errors directly in one line. This keeps your code cleaner and easier to read.
Here’s how the ?= operator works:
- It returns a pair of values: [error, result].
- If an error happens, the first value is the error, and the second is null.
- If there’s no error, the first value is null, and the second value is the result.
Let’s see how it simplifies our earlier example:
In this version, both network errors and JSON parsing errors are handled in a single line. There’s no need for nested try-catch blocks, making the code cleaner and more direct.
Why ?= is a Game-Changer for JavaScript
- Cleaner Code: With ?=, you can handle multiple potential errors in a single line, without using extra try-catch blocks.
- Centralized Error Handling: Instead of spreading error-handling code across different parts of your function, you keep everything together, making it easier to read.
- Better Performance: With fewer try-catch layers, the code runs more efficiently.
- Easy Async Handling: For async functions, the ?= operator lets you handle errors more simply without sacrificing functionality, especially helpful for APIs and web applications.
- Before and After: A Side-by-Side Comparison
To see the difference, let’s compare the old way of error handling to the new approach.
Old Way (with try-catch):
New Way (with ?=):
See how much simpler the second version is? It’s easy to read and removes redundant code.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Error Handling in JavaScript
The ?= operator isn’t just a minor change—it represents a new, simplified approach to error handling in JavaScript. As JavaScript continues to evolve, tools like this help make it a more powerful, modern language for building web and server applications.
If you’re tired of cluttered try-catch blocks, give ?= a try when it’s available. It’s a straightforward tool that can make your code cleaner and your error handling much easier.
Top comments (114)
This operator is a very long way from becoming part of the language, if it ever does. It's from a DRAFT proposal that hasn't even been accepted for consideration yet, let alone inclusion.
Articles like this always seem to gloss over this point which is really annoying.
Yeah and then there's the fact that, like all new ecmascript features preparing to land, it will be supported for years, by being transpiled into the fuckton of "try-catch layers" it's supposed to mitigate. For something that can be facilitated by a trivial utility function (well, a monad ideally), adding a new operator to the language is a completely deranged idea.
Not to mention that it would be quite confusing and typo-prone to have the actual token '?=' used in this way considering ??= already exists and is totally unrelated
Thanks! When I first read it I thought some new feature just dropped, and then I saw your comment 😂 The repo actually says, "This proposal will change to
try-expressionsas its a more idiomatic apporach to this problem." And they're looking for someone to help rewrite it...guess there'll still be a long way to go.
Thanks for the heads up. 👍
Can you link the proposal? I can't find it... Or do you know the name they're giving this new operator?
github.com/arthurfiorette/proposal...
Thank you!
I just wish that people stop using stop doing/using [placeholder].
Totally agreed. Just because there is a new alternative that is applicable in some use cases doesn't mean everyone should abandon the status quo.
That's modern React in a nutshell
Modern react is an oxymoron. React is a framework that is permanently stuck in some sort of dystopian alternate history universe
Calling React a framework is like comparing a cat to a mouse. If you can't figure out that much, why even try to make any other comparison's.
There are many discussions about if it is or isn't a framework (in part because the definition of framework isn't clear cut). It is not as easy as citing what the react website says.
So if the creator calls his cake "cheese cake" but you don't like it you will debate if its should be called cheese cake?
My understanding is that the react team never tried to create a framework, because there is literally no limitation to what you can do with react.
Compare it to Angular and you will find your answer. Debating if its a framework won't make you a better developer. Just assume what the creator intended for it to be, instead of trying to be smart when you're really not.
From the creators of "you're doing [placeholder] wrong" and "[placeholder-1] will change [placeholder-2] forever", Clickbaity studios! 🤣
It's one of the reasons I deleted my Medium account and now it's permiating here too.
Stop telling us what totally normal and absolutely fine thing is bad.
Maximally agree. I search for "Stop Using on this site, and got 50+ hits.
Why? You mean like for the returning another error or something? Not sure why that's a problem, honest question, just curious what you're thinking?
No, OP commenter meant to not use such phrase for clickbait article title
The second example is somewhat confusing to read. The Try/Catch syntax is very intuitive. 👍🏼
It's very go-like syntax and it actually grows on you.
great article! for anyone wanting to try a similar approach to the
?=operator now, i created safe-wrapper to handle errors gracefully. inspired by the safe assignment operator proposal,safe-wrapperreturns a tuple[error, result]for both synchronous and asynchronous functions, reducingtry-catchblocks.it also includes
type-specific error catching, allowing you to specify which error types to handle, throwing any unexpected types, for precise error management.check out the npm package and give it a try!
Thanks for sharing
Clearly the efforts made towards "centralizing" the error handling code makes it more complex and less intuitive than the try..catch version. While I see some value in this potential new operator, I don't think it is such a game changer.
I do not, and never will, use nested try catch within a function. I almost never use it serially unless there is a massive reason such as immediate recoverability from the error, or state rollback, or a darn good logical reason, which is almost never.
I can count on two hands the number of patterns I've violated this rule with in JavaScript, Java, C++ and other languages in the last 35 years.
The reason you need solutions like this is you're writing bad code to begin with and have poor error handling design.
You could have written the try-catch example in 5/6 lines of code, but decided to overcomplicate it just to make your case. Well done, I took the bait, this time 🙂 Another article like this and I delete my subscription.
What? This looks identical to a post that I saw on dev.to a few months ago - why and how is this being "recycled"? Besides, this isn't even an accepted proposal, let alone it's implemented in JS already, so it's misleading to say "stop doing this or that" when the alternative doesn't even work ...
Besides, people should stop writing article titles like "STOP using this ..." or "you MUST do that ..." - we're not toddlers, we can make our own decisions and trade-offs, rather than being patronized or being told what we "must" do (even more so when the actual information is inaccurate or misleading) ...
How and why did this article make it to the top of my "dev.to" feed? Pretty useless ...
You could give a library like TS Results or Never Throw a try which gives additional tooling and abstractions that provides some quality of life & niceties, which can be used right now.
Given that this is not currently implemented for LTS I would recommend an abstraction like a library which could later utilize this method under the hood if/when it makes sense.
I made an account just to write this!
How can I down vote this. What an awful idea! This is going backwards. This is de-evolution. Degradation. Only people who have never in their life had to program in a language who has no exceptions may propose things like this.
Stop it get some help!