5 ways to refactor if/else statements in JS functions

In this blog post I will present 5 ways to declutter your code getting rid of unnecessary if-else statements. I will talk about:

• default parameters,
• or (||) operator,
• nullish coalescing,
• optional chaining,
• no-else-returns and guard clauses

---

1. Default parameters

You know that feeling when you're working with inconsistent API and your code breaks because some values are undefined?

 let sumFunctionThatMayBreak = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => a+b+inconsistentParameter

sumFunctionThatMayBreak(1,39,2) // => 42
sumFunctionThatMayBreak(2,40, undefined) // => NaN

I see that for many folks the instinctive solution to that problem would be adding an if/else statement:

 let sumFunctionWithIf = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    if (inconsistentParameter === undefined){
      return a+b
    } else {
     return a+b+inconsistentParameter
    }
}

sumFunctionWithIf(1,39,2) // => 42
sumFunctionWithIf(2,40, undefined) // => 42

You could, however, simplify the above function and do away with the if/else logic by implementing default parameters:

 let simplifiedSumFunction = (a, b, inconsistentParameter = 0) => a+b+inconsistentParameter

simplifiedSumFunction(1, 39, 2) // => 42
simplifiedSumFunction(2, 40, undefined) // => 42

2. OR operator

The above problem not always can be solved with default parameters. Sometimes, you may be in a situation when you need to use an if-else logic, especially when trying to build conditional rendering feature. In this case, the above problem would be typically solved in this way:

let sumFunctionWithIf = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    if (inconsistentParameter === undefined || inconsistentParameter === null || inconsistentParameter === false){
      return a+b
    } else {
     return a+b+inconsistentParameter
    }
}

sumFunctionWithIf(1, 39, 2) // => 42
sumFunctionWithIf(2, 40, undefined) // => 42
sumFunctionWithIf(2, 40, null) // => 42
sumFunctionWithIf(2, 40, false) // => 42
sumFunctionWithIf(2, 40, 0) // => 42
/// 🚨🚨🚨 but:
sumFunctionWithIf(1, 39, '') // => "40"

or this way:

  let sumFunctionWithTernary = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    inconsistentParameter = !!inconsistentParameter ? inconsistentParameter : 0
    return a+b+inconsistentParameter
}

sumFunctionWithTernary(1,39,2) // => 42
sumFunctionWithTernary(2, 40, undefined) // => 42
sumFunctionWithTernary(2, 40, null) // => 42
sumFunctionWithTernary(2, 40, false) // => 42
sumFunctionWithTernary(1, 39, '') // => 42
sumFunctionWithTernary(2, 40, 0) // => 42

However, you could simplify it even more so by using the OR (||) operator. The || operator works in the following way:

• it returns the right-hand side when the left-side is a falsey value;
• and returns the left-side if it's truthy.

The solution could then look as following:

  let sumFunctionWithOr = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    inconsistentParameter = inconsistentParameter || 0
    return a+b+inconsistentParameter
}

sumFunctionWithOr(1,39,2) // => 42
sumFunctionWithOr(2,40, undefined) // => 42
sumFunctionWithOr(2,40, null) // => 42
sumFunctionWithOr(2,40, false) // => 42
sumFunctionWithOr(2,40, '') // => 42
sumFunctionWithOr(2, 40, 0) // => 42

3. Nullish coalescing

Sometimes, however, you do want to preserve 0 or '' as valid arguments and you cannot do that with the || operator, as visible in the above example. Fortunately, starting with this year, JavaScript gives us access to the ?? (nullish coalescing) operator, which returns the right side only when the left side is null or undefined. This means that if your argument is 0 or '', it will be treated as such. Let's see this in action:

  let sumFunctionWithNullish = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    inconsistentParameter = inconsistentParameter ?? 0.424242
    return a+b+inconsistentParameter
}

sumFunctionWithNullish(2, 40, undefined) // => 42.424242
sumFunctionWithNullish(2, 40, null) // => 42.424242
/// 🚨🚨🚨 but:
sumFunctionWithNullish(1, 39, 2) // => 42
sumFunctionWithNullish(2, 40, false) // => 42
sumFunctionWithNullish(2, 40, '') // => "42"
sumFunctionWithNullish(2, 40, 0) // => 42

4. Optional chaining

Lastly, when dealing with inconsistent data structure, it is a pain to trust that each object will have the same keys. See here:

  let functionThatBreaks = (object) => {
    return object.name.firstName
  }

  functionThatBreaks({name: {firstName: "Sylwia", lasName: "Vargas"}, id:1}) // ✅ "Sylwia" 
  functionThatBreaks({id:2}) // 🚨 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'firstName' of undefined 🚨 

This happens because object.name is undefined and so we cannot call firstName on it.

Many folks approach such a situation in the following way:

  let functionWithIf = (object) => {
    if (object && object.name && object.name.firstName) {
      return object.name.firstName
    }
  }

  functionWithIf({name: {firstName: "Sylwia", lasName: "Vargas"}, id:1) // "Sylwia"
  functionWithIf({name: {lasName: "Vargas"}, id:2}) // undefined
  functionWithIf({id:3}) // undefined
  functionWithIf() // undefined

However, you can simplify the above with the new fresh-off ECMA2020 JS feature: optional chaining. Optional chaining checks at every step whether the return value is undefined and if so, it returns just that instead of throwing an error.

  let functionWithChaining = (object) => object?.name?.firstName 

  functionWithChaining({name: {firstName: "Sylwia", lasName: "Vargas"}, id:1}) // "Sylwia"
  functionWithChaining({name: {lasName: "Vargas"}, id:2}) // undefined
  functionWithChaining({id:3}) // undefined
  functionWithChaining() // undefined

5. No-else-returns and guard clauses

Last solution to clunky if/else statements, especially those nested ones, are no-else-return statements and guard clauses. So, imagine we have this function:

  let nestedIfElseHell = (str) => {
    if (typeof str == "string"){
      if (str.length > 1) {
        return str.slice(0,-1)
      } else {
        return null
      }
    } else { 
      return null
    }
  }

nestedIfElseHell("") // => null 
nestedIfElseHell("h") // => null
nestedIfElseHell("hello!") // => "hello"

✨ no-else-return

Now, we could simplify this function with the no-else-return statement since all we are returning is null anyway:

  let noElseReturns = (str) => {
    if (typeof str == "string"){
      if (str.length > 1) {
        return str.slice(0,-1)
      }
    }

    return null
  }

noElseReturns("") // => null 
noElseReturns("h") // => null
noElseReturns("hello!") // => "hello"

The benefit of the no-else-return statement is that if the condition is not met, the function ends the execution of the if-else and jumps to the next line. You could even do without the last line (return null) and then the return would be undefined.

psst: I actually used a no-else-return function in the previous example 👀

✨ guard clauses

Now we could take it a step further and set up guards that would end the code execution even earlier:

  let guardClauseFun = (str) => {
    // ✅ first guard: check the type
    if (typeof str !== "string") return null
    // ✅ second guard: check for the length
    if (str.length <= 3) console.warn("your string should be at least 3 characters long and its length is", str.length) 
    // otherwise:
    return str.slice(0,-1)
  }

guardClauseFun(5) // => null 
guardClauseFun("h") // => undefined with a warning
guardClauseFun("hello!") // => "hello"

---

What tricks do you use to avoid clunky if/else statements?

✨✨✨ If you are comfortable with OOP JS, definitely check this awesome blog post by Maxi Contieri!

---

Cover photo by James Wheeler from Pexels

Comments

[bugb]

Suppose you have a code like this:

function foo(arg) {
  if (arg === "a") return 1
  if (arg === "b") return 2
  return 3 //default value
}

You can use something likes this instead of the example above or switch case:

const mapping = {
  a:  1.
  b:  2,
}
function foo(arg) {
  return mapping[arg] || 3;
}

[Robert Myers]

Personally, I'm a little torn on this pattern. It's compact, and I've definitely used it.

But, IMHO, it increases the cognitive load of the code, you now have two places to look for what it's doing.

[EECOLOR]

it increases the cognitive load of the code, you now have two places to look for what it's doing

For that reason in some instances I use this:

function foo(arg) {
  return (
    arg === 'a' ? 1 :
    arg === 'b' ? 2 :
    3
  )
}

or this:

function foo(arg) {
  return {
    a:  1,
    b:  2,
  }[arg] || 3
}

[HS]

And performance impact. Using a map (object whatever the name) should introduce indexing operation in the background. On the other hand what if arg = null or arg = 123 or so? You need to handle all the cases instead of having simple switch with the default. Or even just using if's until you actually need more than 3 cases.

[rasmusvhansen]

I doubt there is any real world performance issue here. And as soon as you have more than 2 cases, this is much more readable than a bunch of if statements.

Regarding handling arg=null or arg=123, I don't think I see the issue.
That is handled by the

 return mapping[arg] || 3;

part.

[HS]

I highly doubt that using objects instead of switches and ifs has same performance. I'm not limiting it to this scenario but talking about generic overview why should one avoid switches and ifs in favour of objects or hash maps. Reason I'm asking is because I know for a fact that compilers (including JIT ones) and maybe some interpreters have really good optimizations which can even remove branching in some cases but I have no idea would such thing kick in for objects in JS. I know that c++ compiler since 2017 or so has really good optimizations that can turn generics, branching, hahsmaps into few instructions all together. There was a nice conf were, I forgot his name, wrote code on left side and on the right there was assembly outout. I also know JIT in Java will sometimes kick in an replace some of your code with shorter instructions than on first complie. Question is will such things be done by WebKit or others for JS.
Reagarding the safety again it's about generic thing not thi particular piece. It's much easier to have switch with default case and even shorter than objects and relying that || will not be forgotten

[rasmusvhansen]

I think we are both right here.
You are right that there probably is a difference in performance.
And I am right that in the real world it will make no difference*.
I learned to always prefer readability and then profile if something is slow. It is usually not what you think that is slowing you down.

*Except in that 0.001% weird edge case

[xtofl]

Fyi . The c++ tool mentioned would be godboldt.org.

[João Ferreira]

I like too use mapping objects for everything, but never put a default inside the function. So all my attention is driven to the object. If the function doesn't find a value in the object, it does nothing and returns null, if needed a value.

[João Ferreira]

"too" was mistype, but let it be

[Sylwia Vargas]

Yeah, it's definitely less "user-friendly" or "beginner-friendly". Coming from Ruby, it gave me chills but also I was really excited for the shorthand properties so — I'm as torn as you are there!

[Sylwia Vargas]

Oh, yes! Totally — and thank you! I actually wanted to include this as well but had to run for a lecture. I'll include this wonderful example (I may just change the names so it's easier for tired folks to follow) in the blog tomorrow — look for the shoutout!

[yerlanyr]

This thing I use a lot!

function foo(arg) {
  if (arg === "a") return 1
  if (arg === "b") return 2
  return 3 //default value
}

At this point I always format if statements as if code block, because condition in if statement could be very long so that return would be lost dangling somewhere outside of field of view which could lead to bad mistakes.

function foo(arg) {
  if (arg % 3 === 0 && arg % 5 == 0 /* let's pretend there is very long condition*/) return 'foobar'
  if (arg % 3 === 0) return 'foo'
  if (arg % 5 === 0) return 'foo'
}

Data structures are good for reducing code's complexity. Sometimes it is clearer to use switch case or if's.

[Sylwia Vargas]

I love these examples — thank you!

condition in if statement could be very long so that return would be lost dangling somewhere outside of field of view
I really couldn't agree more. This is definitely one of the main things that bother me about JS specifically — that there's no strict standard/expectation of writing really short code.

[Amin]

Hi there, great article, thank you!

I like to deal with all the error cases first, and then dealing with the heart of the function. Also I like to create small functions that deal with a single responsibility, this is easier to work with IMO.

I have sort of a kink with promises now and I like to put them everywhere. I like the simplicity of chaining functions.

"use strict";

const string = something => JSON.stringify(something);

const divide = (numerator, denominator) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    if (typeof numerator !== "number") {
        return reject(new TypeError(`numerator should be a number in divide(${string(numerator)}, ${string(denominator)})`));
    }

    if (typeof denominator !== "number") {
        return reject(new TypeError(`denominator should be a number in divide(${string(numerator)}, ${string(denominator)})`));
    }

    if (0 === denominator) {
        return reject(new Error(`denominator should not be zero in divide(${string(numerator)}, ${string(denominator)})`));
    }

    return resolve(numerator / denominator);
});

divide(1, 2)
    .then(result => divide(result, 2))
    .then(result => divide(result, 2))
    .then(result => console.log(`After dividing by two three times: ${result}.`))
    // After dividing by two three times: 0.125.
    .catch(({message}) => console.error(`error while dividing: ${message}.`));

divide(1, 0)
    .then(result => divide(result, 2))
    .then(result => divide(result, 2))
    .then(result => console.log(`After dividing by two three times: ${result}.`))
    .catch(({message}) => console.error(`error while dividing: ${message}.`));
    // error while dividing: denominator should not be zero in divide(1, 0).

[rasmusvhansen]

I am not sure turning inherently synchronous code into async is a good idea. Promises are OK (not great - observables are better in many cases) for async operations but I would definitely avoid introducing the complexity for inherently sync operations.

By using this pattern, you are forcing all your code to be async.

[EECOLOR]

If you use async your code becomes a bit more natural:

async function divide(numerator, denominator) {
    if (typeof numerator !== "number") {
        throw new TypeError(`numerator should be a number in divide(${numerator}, ${denominator})`);
    }

    if (typeof denominator !== "number") {
        throw new TypeError(`denominator should be a number in divide(${numerator}, ${denominator})`);
    }

    if (0 === denominator) {
        throw new Error(`denominator should not be zero in divide(${numerator}, ${denominator})`);
    }

    return numerator / denominator;
});

This however indicates that it would be probably be smart to remove the async and move that to a separate function. That would allow you to use the divide function in more scenario's.

[Sylwia Vargas]

THANK YOU! YES, I was soooo tempted to touch on Promises but then majority of folks who read my blogs (maybe less so now?) are beginners so I'm planning to write a separate thing on promises in general. However, I'll link your comment in the article because I love your example! Thank you.

[Daniel Hintz]

This is an awesome demonstration! I need to start learning and living this pattern for larger functionality.

[Vesa Piittinen]

Tip: instead of something === undefined && something === null you can write something == null and it matches both undefined and null, and only them.

I find it the only valid case to use == over ===.

[Corentin Girard]

That's true, but oftentimes you have a linter which forces to use "eqeqeq"

[Vesa Piittinen]

Only if you have had someone strongly opinioned setting it up :) And even then you have the null: ignore option for it.

[Sylwia Vargas]

True! Thanks!

[Björn Christensson]

Tnx for this list.

Minor feedback in the ✨ guard clauses

guardClauseFun("h") // => undefined with a warning

It will not return undefined since you do not break the function flow, it will continue to the end and return "" (empty string).

[David Hill]

yup,
a solution would be to add a return before the console.warn then it would return undefined

if (str.length <= 3) return console.warn("your string should be at least 3 characters long and its length is", str.length) 

[Sylwia Vargas]

Ah! True. I edited that part and didn't edit the examples. Argh I should write unit tests for my blogs 😩 Thank you!

[Björn Christensson]

That is the way to go! Smart, if all code samples came from actual unit tests eg. Mocha you would also practice the mentality of "placing tests in the first room".

[Sylwia Vargas]

Yeah I might try it in some future blogs. I've always been a fan of TDD but never made space to properly go through all the phases and the process because I felt there was "not enough time". I'm slowly changing this mindset not only because I feel like TDD is really awesome but also because of how the "not enough time" mindset impacts me and my ability to code at times.

[David Hill]

One thing I see on occasion,

is the resulting action being calling a function, with the only difference being some logic determining what a certain argument should be

const doSomething = function (arg1, arg2) {
  if (arg1 === "condition") {
    return callA(arg1, arg2, 10);
  }
  return callA(arg1, arg2, 0);
};

versus

const doSomethingB = function (arg1, arg2) {
  const arg3 = arg1 === "condition" ? 10 : 0;
  return callA(arg1, arg2, arg3);
};

Another one is calling functions with the same arguments, with the only difference being which function to call:

const doSomething = function (arg1, arg2, arg3) {
  if (arg1 === "condition") {
    return callA(arg1, arg2, arg3);
  }
  return callB(arg1, arg2, arg3);
};

Versus

const doSomething = function (arg1, arg2, arg3) {
  const fnToCall = arg1 === "condition" ? callA : callB;
  return fnToCall(arg1, arg2, arg3);
};

[Sylwia Vargas]

Thank you for these examples! Coming from Ruby, this is something I definitely instinctively lean towards and catch myself writing sometimes 😂 I'll include you're examples in the blog post!

[cknott]

I think theres a typo in the last example of the 2nd block "OR operator"

this

  let sumFunctionWithOr = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    inconsistentParameter = inconsistentParameter ?? 0
    return a+b+inconsistentParameter
}

should be

  let sumFunctionWithOr = (a, b, inconsistentParameter) => {
    inconsistentParameter = inconsistentParameter || 0
    return a+b+inconsistentParameter
}

[Sylwia Vargas]

Ahhhh thank you! That's what happens when you copy examples mindlessly 😩

[M. Akbar Nugroho]

It's very awesome when you use guard clause to handle multiple condition instead of using if elseif else statement.

I'm a big fan of it and always use it to handle conditional statement in my code :).

[Sylwia Vargas]

Ahhhh I'm also such a fan of guard clauses! My first coding language is and was Ruby, which is obsessed with readable and pleasant code so of course, the looong code monsters that JS awakens from the deepest depth of programming hell gave me chills initially. I feel like my brain fries when I read nested if-elses... there should be an ESLint rule that obliges devs to draw a flowchart every time they write a nested if-else so it's quick and easy to follow :D

[Maxi Contieri]

Nice!

This is applied to structured programming and these operators are great.

In OOP you can remove all accidental IFs and elses

How to Get Rid of Annoying IFs Forever

Maxi Contieri ・ Nov 9 ・ 5 min read

#oop #programming #codenewbie #tutorial

[Sylwia Vargas]

Awesome! I've linked up your blog post in mine just now!

[Manuel Tancoigne]

I mainly develop in Ruby and that makes me love guard clauses. Even our linter enforces us to use them for the sake of readability, and it looks awesome :)

raise 'This is not possible' if impossible?

# code continues if not impossible?

[Sylwia Vargas]

Ruby 🥰 Guard clauses 🥰 Ruby Linters 🥰

[Muhamad Hudya Ramadhana]

If you have more than one condition, why you just not using an array rather than or?

let arr = [null, undefined, '']
if (x in arr) {
   // code
}

[Sylwia Vargas]

Yeah it's one way to do it but that still keeps the same if-else (or just no-return-statement) logic that we want to ideally get rid of. Here I'd also worry about the performance as if-else is costly and so is looping and here we'd have looping inside if-else. But I like this example — thank you!