I heard such an opinion that you should avoid usage of try/catch at all because it takes many resources. So could the promise error handling to be faster? Or it does not matter at all?
function f(somethingDangerous) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
// try {
// somethingDangerous();
// resolve();
// } catch (err) {
// reject(err);
// }
// VS
somethingDangerous();
resolve();
}).catch((err) => {
console.error('Catched: ' + err);
});
}
f(() => {throw 'DANGEROUS THING';});
UPD: I know that try/catch won't work with async code inside. I'm just wondering if there any reasons to avoiding of try/catch because of performance issues? And is there any difference between the two approaches above?
UPD2: Tried to race my horses :) https://jsperf.com/try-catch-vs-promise
You should use Promises only for asynchronous functions and nothing else. Do not abuse them as an error monad, that would be a waste of resources and their inherent asynchrony will make everything more cumbersome.
When you have synchronous code, use try
/catch
for exception handling.
/* Wrong */
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
resolve(x / y);
}).catch(err => NaN)
/* Right */
try {
return x / y;
} catch(e) {
return NaN;
}
If you already have promise code, you can avoid that in certain situations: when you want the exception to reject the promise. In those cases you should just let the builtin error handling of your promises do its job, and not complicate everything by an additional but pointless try
/catch
layer:
/* Wrong */
new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
try { // when used synchronous in the executor callback
…
resolve(somethingSynchronous());
} catch (e) {
reject(e);
}
});
/* Right */
new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
…
resolve(somethingExceptionally());
});
/* Wrong */
….then(function(res) {
try {
…
return somethingExceptionally();
} catch(e) {
return Promise.reject(e);
}
}).…
/* Right */
….then(function(res) {
…
return somethingExceptionally();
}).…