anonymous functions considered harmful? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.

Closed 3 years ago.

Improve this question

The more I delve into javascript, the more I think about the consequences of certain design decisions and encouraged practices. In this case, I am observing anonymous functions, a feature which is not only JavaScript-provided, but I see strongly used.

I think we can all agree on the following facts:

• the human mind does not deal with more than 7 plus minus two entities (Miller's law)
• deep indentation is considered bad programming practice, and generally points out at design issues if you indent more than three or four levels. This extends to nested entities, and it's well presented in the python Zen entry "Flat is better than nested."
• the idea of having a function name is both for reference, and for easy documentation of the task it performs. We know, or can expect, what a function called removeListEntry() does. Self-documenting, clear code is important for debugging and readability.

While anonymous functions appears to be a very nice feature, its use leads to deeply nested code design. The code is quick to write, but difficult to read. Instead of开发者_运维技巧 being forced to invent a named context for a functionality, and flatten your hierarchy of callable objects, it encourages a "go deep one level", pushing your brain stack and quickly overflowing the 7 +/- 2 rule. A similar concept is expressed in Alan Cooper's "About Face", quoting loosely "people don't understand hierarchies". As programmers we do understand hierarchies, but our biology still limits our grasping of deep nesting.

I'd like to hear you on this point. Should anonymous functions be considered harmful, an apparent shiny syntactic sugar which we find later on to be salt, or even rat poison ?

CW as there's no correct answer.

---

As I see it, the problem you're facing is not anonymous functions, rather an unwillingness to factor out functionality into useful and reusable units. Which is interesting, because it's easier to reuse functionality in languages with first-class functions (and, necessarily, anonymous functions) than in languages without.

If you see a lot of deeply nested anonymous functions in your code, I would suggest that there may be a lot of common functionality that can be factored out into named higher-order functions (i.e. functions that take or return ("build") other functions). Even "simple" transformations of existing functions should be given names if they are used often. This is just the DRY principle.

---

Anonymous functions are more useful functionally than they are harmful legibly. I think that if you format your code well enough, you shouldn't have a problem. I don't have a problem with it, and I'm sure I can't handle 7 elements, let alone 7 + 2 :)

---

Actually, hierarchies help to overcome 7+/-2 rule the same way as OOP does. When you're writing or reading a class, you read its content and nothing of outside code so you are dealing with relatively small portion of entities. When you're looking at class hierarchies, you don't look inside them, meaning then again you are dealing with small number of entities.

The same if true for nested functions. By dividing your code into multiple levels of hierarchy, you keep each level small enough for human brain to comprehend.

Closures (or anonymous functions) just help to break your code into slightly different way than OOP does but they doesn't really create any hierarchies. They are here to help you to execute your code in context of other block of code. In C++ or Java you have to create a class for that, in JavaScript function is enough. Granted, standalone class is easier to understand as it is just easier for human to look at it as at standalone block. Function seems to be much smaller in size and brain sometimes think it can comprehend it AND code around it at the same time which is usually a bad idea. But you can train your brain not to do that :)

So no, I don't think anonymous functions are at all harmful, you just have to learn to deal with them, as you learnt to deal with classes.

---

Amusingly, JavaScript will let you name "anonymous" functions:

function f(x) {
   return function add(y) {
        return x+y;
   };
}

---

I think closures have enormous benefits which should not be overlooked. For example, Apple leverages "blocks"(closures for C) with GCD to provide really easy multithreading - you don't need to setup context structs, and can just reference variables by name since they're in scope.

I think a bigger problem with Javascript is that it doesn't have block scope(blocks in this case referring to code in braces, like an if statement). This can lead to enormous complications, forcing programmers to use unnecessary closures to get around this Javascript design limitation.

---

I also think anonymous functions (in latest languages often referred as closures) have great benefits and make code often more readable and shorter. I sometimes am getting really nuts when I have to work with Java (where closures aren't first class language features).

If indentation and too many encapsulated function-variables are the problem then you should refactor the code to have it more modular and readable.

Regarding java-script I think that function-variables look quite ugly and make code cluttered (the encapsulated function(...){} string makes java-script code often less readable). As an example I much prefer the closure syntax of groovy ('{}' and '->' chars).

---

If a function is not understandable without a name, the name is probably too long. Use comments to explain cryptic code, don't rely on names.

---

Who ever came up with the idea of requiring functions to be bound to identifiers did every programmer a disservice. If you've never done functional programming and you're not familiar with and comfortable with functions being first-class values, you're not a real programmer.

In fact, to counter your own argument, I would go so far as to consider functions bound to (global) names to be harmful! Check Crockford's article about private and public members and learn more.