search
HomeWeb Front-endJS TutorialYou're Doing Error-Handling Wrong!

You’re Doing Error-Handling Wrong!

You’re Doing Error-Handling Wrong: A Case for Predictable and Standardized Responses

Introduction: An Opinionated Stance

Error handling in JavaScript is a topic that evokes strong opinions, and I’m here to share mine: the traditional try-catch approach is clunky, inconvenient, and outdated. At Garmingo, where we built Garmingo Status — a SaaS solution for uptime and infrastructure monitoring—we’ve shifted away from try-catch blocks. Instead, we embraced a TypeScript-based approach that provides predictable, standardized responses for asynchronous operations.

This article shares why we believe this paradigm is a game-changer for developer productivity and how it helped simplify our codebase. While it’s an opinionated take, I hope it inspires you to rethink how you handle errors in your own projects.

The Problem with try-catch

Let’s face it: error handling in JavaScript can get messy. Traditional try-catch blocks come with a host of challenges:

  1. Verbosity: Wrapping every asynchronous function call in a try-catch adds unnecessary boilerplate. It clutters your code and detracts from readability.
  2. Inconsistent Error Objects: JavaScript error objects can vary wildly in structure and content. Without standardization, handling these errors often feels like playing a guessing game.
  3. Nested Logic Hell: When dealing with multiple operations that can fail, nested try-catch blocks turn your code into an unreadable mess.

Here’s a simple example highlighting these issues:

try {
  const user = await fetchUser();
  try {
    const account = await fetchAccount(user.id);
    console.log(account);
  } catch (accountError) {
    console.error('Error fetching account:', accountError);
  }
} catch (userError) {
  console.error('Error fetching user:', userError);
}

The result? Code that’s harder to read, debug, and maintain.

Enter the TypeScript Typed Response Paradigm

At Garmingo Status, we ditched try-catch in favor of a standardized response structure for all asynchronous operations. Here’s how it works:

The Structure

Every async function returns a Promise with a predefined union type:

Promise;

This approach ensures that:

  • If the operation fails, the result is always { success: false, error: string }.
  • If it succeeds, it’s { success: true, result: T }.
  • If success is true there is a result object and no error object and vice versa. You cannot even use the result on failed responses.

Here’s the same example from above, rewritten with this pattern:

const userResponse = await fetchUser();

if (!userResponse.success) {
  console.error('Error fetching user:', userResponse.error);
  return;
}

const accountResponse = await fetchAccount(userResponse.result.id);

if (!accountResponse.success) {
  console.error('Error fetching account:', accountResponse.error);
  return;
}

console.log(accountResponse.result);

As you can see it does not introduce any nesting for the main logic of your app. It just adds these small checks for error handling, but the main flow remains uninterrupted and can continue like there was no need for error handling in the first place.

The Advantages of Predictable and Standardized Error Handling

1. Predictability

The biggest benefit is knowing exactly what to expect. Whether the operation succeeds or fails, the structure is consistent. This eliminates the ambiguity that often comes with error objects.

2. Ease of Use

Gone are the days of deeply nested try-catch blocks. With the typed approach, you can handle errors inline without breaking the flow of your code.

3. Improved Readability

The structured approach makes your code cleaner and easier to follow. Each operation clearly defines what happens in success and failure scenarios.

4. Enhanced Type Safety

TypeScript’s static analysis ensures you never forget to handle errors. If you accidentally omit a check for success, the TypeScript compiler will flag it.

A Balanced Perspective

No approach is without its drawbacks. The typed response paradigm requires you to explicitly check the success status for every operation, even if you’re confident it will succeed. This adds minor overhead compared to the traditional approach, where you might simply avoid error handling altogether (albeit at your own risk).

However, this “drawback” is also one of its strengths: it forces you to think critically about potential failures, resulting in more robust code.

How We Use It at Garmingo Status

At Garmingo, this approach has transformed how we build asynchronous utilities and libraries. Every API call and database query adheres to this standardized response structure, ensuring consistency across our codebase.
In fact, EVERY single async function that is reused trough-out the project and could fail uses this approach.
The result? A smoother (and much faster) development experience and fewer late-night debugging sessions.

For example, a fetch function could look like this:

try {
  const user = await fetchUser();
  try {
    const account = await fetchAccount(user.id);
    console.log(account);
  } catch (accountError) {
    console.error('Error fetching account:', accountError);
  }
} catch (userError) {
  console.error('Error fetching user:', userError);
}

This predictability has been a game-changer for our team, allowing us to focus on building features rather than untangling error-handling logic.

Conclusion

Traditional try-catch blocks have their place, but for modern JavaScript development — especially in TypeScript-heavy codebases — they’re often more trouble than they’re worth. By adopting a typed response paradigm, you gain predictability, readability, and peace of mind.

At Garmingo, we’ve seen firsthand how this approach simplifies development and enhances our ability to deliver a polished product like Garmingo Status. While it might not be for everyone, it’s an approach I strongly believe more developers should consider.

So, are you ready to rethink error handling? Let me know your thoughts!

The above is the detailed content of You're Doing Error-Handling Wrong!. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!

Statement
The content of this article is voluntarily contributed by netizens, and the copyright belongs to the original author. This site does not assume corresponding legal responsibility. If you find any content suspected of plagiarism or infringement, please contact admin@php.cn
Javascript Data Types : Is there any difference between Browser and NodeJs?Javascript Data Types : Is there any difference between Browser and NodeJs?May 14, 2025 am 12:15 AM

JavaScript core data types are consistent in browsers and Node.js, but are handled differently from the extra types. 1) The global object is window in the browser and global in Node.js. 2) Node.js' unique Buffer object, used to process binary data. 3) There are also differences in performance and time processing, and the code needs to be adjusted according to the environment.

JavaScript Comments: A Guide to Using // and /* */JavaScript Comments: A Guide to Using // and /* */May 13, 2025 pm 03:49 PM

JavaScriptusestwotypesofcomments:single-line(//)andmulti-line(//).1)Use//forquicknotesorsingle-lineexplanations.2)Use//forlongerexplanationsorcommentingoutblocksofcode.Commentsshouldexplainthe'why',notthe'what',andbeplacedabovetherelevantcodeforclari

Python vs. JavaScript: A Comparative Analysis for DevelopersPython vs. JavaScript: A Comparative Analysis for DevelopersMay 09, 2025 am 12:22 AM

The main difference between Python and JavaScript is the type system and application scenarios. 1. Python uses dynamic types, suitable for scientific computing and data analysis. 2. JavaScript adopts weak types and is widely used in front-end and full-stack development. The two have their own advantages in asynchronous programming and performance optimization, and should be decided according to project requirements when choosing.

Python vs. JavaScript: Choosing the Right Tool for the JobPython vs. JavaScript: Choosing the Right Tool for the JobMay 08, 2025 am 12:10 AM

Whether to choose Python or JavaScript depends on the project type: 1) Choose Python for data science and automation tasks; 2) Choose JavaScript for front-end and full-stack development. Python is favored for its powerful library in data processing and automation, while JavaScript is indispensable for its advantages in web interaction and full-stack development.

Python and JavaScript: Understanding the Strengths of EachPython and JavaScript: Understanding the Strengths of EachMay 06, 2025 am 12:15 AM

Python and JavaScript each have their own advantages, and the choice depends on project needs and personal preferences. 1. Python is easy to learn, with concise syntax, suitable for data science and back-end development, but has a slow execution speed. 2. JavaScript is everywhere in front-end development and has strong asynchronous programming capabilities. Node.js makes it suitable for full-stack development, but the syntax may be complex and error-prone.

JavaScript's Core: Is It Built on C or C  ?JavaScript's Core: Is It Built on C or C ?May 05, 2025 am 12:07 AM

JavaScriptisnotbuiltonCorC ;it'saninterpretedlanguagethatrunsonenginesoftenwritteninC .1)JavaScriptwasdesignedasalightweight,interpretedlanguageforwebbrowsers.2)EnginesevolvedfromsimpleinterpreterstoJITcompilers,typicallyinC ,improvingperformance.

JavaScript Applications: From Front-End to Back-EndJavaScript Applications: From Front-End to Back-EndMay 04, 2025 am 12:12 AM

JavaScript can be used for front-end and back-end development. The front-end enhances the user experience through DOM operations, and the back-end handles server tasks through Node.js. 1. Front-end example: Change the content of the web page text. 2. Backend example: Create a Node.js server.

Python vs. JavaScript: Which Language Should You Learn?Python vs. JavaScript: Which Language Should You Learn?May 03, 2025 am 12:10 AM

Choosing Python or JavaScript should be based on career development, learning curve and ecosystem: 1) Career development: Python is suitable for data science and back-end development, while JavaScript is suitable for front-end and full-stack development. 2) Learning curve: Python syntax is concise and suitable for beginners; JavaScript syntax is flexible. 3) Ecosystem: Python has rich scientific computing libraries, and JavaScript has a powerful front-end framework.

See all articles

Hot AI Tools

Undresser.AI Undress

Undresser.AI Undress

AI-powered app for creating realistic nude photos

AI Clothes Remover

AI Clothes Remover

Online AI tool for removing clothes from photos.

Undress AI Tool

Undress AI Tool

Undress images for free

Clothoff.io

Clothoff.io

AI clothes remover

Video Face Swap

Video Face Swap

Swap faces in any video effortlessly with our completely free AI face swap tool!

Hot Article

Hot Tools

SublimeText3 Chinese version

SublimeText3 Chinese version

Chinese version, very easy to use

VSCode Windows 64-bit Download

VSCode Windows 64-bit Download

A free and powerful IDE editor launched by Microsoft

SecLists

SecLists

SecLists is the ultimate security tester's companion. It is a collection of various types of lists that are frequently used during security assessments, all in one place. SecLists helps make security testing more efficient and productive by conveniently providing all the lists a security tester might need. List types include usernames, passwords, URLs, fuzzing payloads, sensitive data patterns, web shells, and more. The tester can simply pull this repository onto a new test machine and he will have access to every type of list he needs.

Notepad++7.3.1

Notepad++7.3.1

Easy-to-use and free code editor

SAP NetWeaver Server Adapter for Eclipse

SAP NetWeaver Server Adapter for Eclipse

Integrate Eclipse with SAP NetWeaver application server.