3 ms·
The argument that stack traces are easier to debug when functions are named is always brought up when talking about the issue of naming functions. However, I do
by nawitus 11y ago
The argument that stack traces are easier to debug when functions are named is always brought up when talking about the issue of naming functions. However, I don't quite understand why it's such a big issue. Whenever I get a stack trace the issue is almost always easy to debug. That has been my experience working with JavaScript full time for two and a half years.
And every difficult to debug bug hasn't been related to knowing which functions are in the stack, but are instead related to figuring out why frameworks do something or race conditions and so on.
I just find it surprising that people are having problems with anonymous functions in stack traces, when I've never seen that.
- jtchang 11y agoHow do you easily glance at a stack trace and know if it is your own code or a 3rd party library's code? Named functions definitely help a lot.
- Killswitch 11y agoBecause at a glance, it's easier to see the path of the file as an identifier than the name of the function. Function names are not unique throughout the codebase and dependencies. Lots of dependencies have the same named functions.
- AgentME 11y agoYeah I don't understand why "name your (short callback) functions" gets repeated as a truism so much. Do people have stacktraces that are missing line numbers?
- alessioalex 11y agoLine numbers don't help you with memory leaks, seeing the name of your function there does.
- vkjv 11y agoThis. They don't show up in heap dumps and sometimes CPU profiles.