>The bad performance in this article has nothing to do with callbacks, but is all about the overhead associated with function re-definition. To the author's po

>The bad performance in this article has nothing to do with callbacks, but is all about the overhead associated with function re-definition. To the author's point, I think they're addressing a common vector of criticism with respect to JS callbacks... Usually when someone is writing their "callbacks are evil" proof, they give the typical "callback pyramid of doom" example to prove their point...the author is just showing that if you do it right and flatten your callback structure out with named functions, etc., it solves a lot of those problems.. I think the author was trying to make the point that callbacks themselves are not the problem, per se, but rather the way they are commonly (and wrongly) used.