Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Clean Code Javascript

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 46

clean-code-javascript

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Variables
3. Functions
4. Objects and Data Structures
5. Classes
6. SOLID
7. Testing
8. Concurrency
9. Error Handling
10. Formatting
11. Comments
12. Translation

Introduction

Figure 1: Humorous image of software quality estimation as a count of how


many expletives you shout when reading code

Software engineering principles, from Robert C. Martin’s book Clean Code,


adapted for JavaScript. This is not a style guide. It’s a guide to producing
readable, reusable, and refactorable software in JavaScript.
Not every principle herein has to be strictly followed, and even fewer will be
universally agreed upon. These are guidelines and nothing more, but they are
ones codified over many years of collective experience by the authors of Clean
Code.
Our craft of software engineering is just a bit over 50 years old, and we are still
learning a lot. When software architecture is as old as architecture itself, maybe
then we will have harder rules to follow. For now, let these guidelines serve as a
touchstone by which to assess the quality of the JavaScript code that you and
your team produce.

1
One more thing: knowing these won’t immediately make you a better software
developer, and working with them for many years doesn’t mean you won’t make
mistakes. Every piece of code starts as a first draft, like wet clay getting shaped
into its final form. Finally, we chisel away the imperfections when we review it
with our peers. Don’t beat yourself up for first drafts that need improvement.
Beat up the code instead!

Variables
Use meaningful and pronounceable variable names
Bad:
const yyyymmdstr = moment().format("YYYY/MM/DD");
Good:
const currentDate = moment().format("YYYY/MM/DD");
� back to top

Use the same vocabulary for the same type of variable


Bad:
getUserInfo();
getClientData();
getCustomerRecord();
Good:
getUser();
� back to top

Use searchable names


We will read more code than we will ever write. It’s important that the code we
do write is readable and searchable. By not naming variables that end up being
meaningful for understanding our program, we hurt our readers. Make your
names searchable. Tools like buddy.js and ESLint can help identify unnamed
constants.
Bad:
// What the heck is 86400000 for?
setTimeout(blastOff, 86400000);
Good:
// Declare them as capitalized named constants.
const MILLISECONDS_PER_DAY = 60 * 60 * 24 * 1000; //86400000;

2
setTimeout(blastOff, MILLISECONDS_PER_DAY);
� back to top

Use explanatory variables


Bad:
const address = "One Infinite Loop, Cupertino 95014";
const cityZipCodeRegex = /^[^,\\]+[,\\\s]+(.+?)\s*(\d{5})?$/;
saveCityZipCode(
address.match(cityZipCodeRegex)[1],
address.match(cityZipCodeRegex)[2]
);
Good:
const address = "One Infinite Loop, Cupertino 95014";
const cityZipCodeRegex = /^[^,\\]+[,\\\s]+(.+?)\s*(\d{5})?$/;
const [_, city, zipCode] = address.match(cityZipCodeRegex) || [];
saveCityZipCode(city, zipCode);
� back to top

Avoid Mental Mapping


Explicit is better than implicit.
Bad:
const locations = ["Austin", "New York", "San Francisco"];
locations.forEach(l => {
doStuff();
doSomeOtherStuff();
// ...
// ...
// ...
// Wait, what is `l` for again?
dispatch(l);
});
Good:
const locations = ["Austin", "New York", "San Francisco"];
locations.forEach(location => {
doStuff();
doSomeOtherStuff();
// ...
// ...
// ...

3
dispatch(location);
});
� back to top

Don’t add unneeded context


If your class/object name tells you something, don’t repeat that in your variable
name.
Bad:
const Car = {
carMake: "Honda",
carModel: "Accord",
carColor: "Blue"
};

function paintCar(car, color) {


car.carColor = color;
}
Good:
const Car = {
make: "Honda",
model: "Accord",
color: "Blue"
};

function paintCar(car, color) {


car.color = color;
}
� back to top

Use default parameters instead of short circuiting or conditionals


Default parameters are often cleaner than short circuiting. Be aware that if
you use them, your function will only provide default values for undefined
arguments. Other “falsy” values such as '', "", false, null, 0, and NaN, will
not be replaced by a default value.
Bad:
function createMicrobrewery(name) {
const breweryName = name || "Hipster Brew Co.";
// ...
}
Good:

4
function createMicrobrewery(name = "Hipster Brew Co.") {
// ...
}
� back to top

Functions
Function arguments (2 or fewer ideally)
Limiting the amount of function parameters is incredibly important because it
makes testing your function easier. Having more than three leads to a combina-
torial explosion where you have to test tons of different cases with each separate
argument.
One or two arguments is the ideal case, and three should be avoided if possible.
Anything more than that should be consolidated. Usually, if you have more than
two arguments then your function is trying to do too much. In cases where it’s
not, most of the time a higher-level object will suffice as an argument.
Since JavaScript allows you to make objects on the fly, without a lot of class
boilerplate, you can use an object if you are finding yourself needing a lot of
arguments.
To make it obvious what properties the function expects, you can use the
ES2015/ES6 destructuring syntax. This has a few advantages:
1. When someone looks at the function signature, it’s immediately clear what
properties are being used.
2. It can be used to simulate named parameters.
3. Destructuring also clones the specified primitive values of the argument
object passed into the function. This can help prevent side effects. Note:
objects and arrays that are destructured from the argument object are
NOT cloned.
4. Linters can warn you about unused properties, which would be impossible
without destructuring.
Bad:
function createMenu(title, body, buttonText, cancellable) {
// ...
}

createMenu("Foo", "Bar", "Baz", true);


Good:
function createMenu({ title, body, buttonText, cancellable }) {
// ...
}

5
createMenu({
title: "Foo",
body: "Bar",
buttonText: "Baz",
cancellable: true
});
� back to top

Functions should do one thing


This is by far the most important rule in software engineering. When functions
do more than one thing, they are harder to compose, test, and reason about.
When you can isolate a function to just one action, it can be refactored easily
and your code will read much cleaner. If you take nothing else away from this
guide other than this, you’ll be ahead of many developers.
Bad:
function emailClients(clients) {
clients.forEach(client => {
const clientRecord = database.lookup(client);
if (clientRecord.isActive()) {
email(client);
}
});
}
Good:
function emailActiveClients(clients) {
clients.filter(isActiveClient).forEach(email);
}

function isActiveClient(client) {
const clientRecord = database.lookup(client);
return clientRecord.isActive();
}
� back to top

Function names should say what they do


Bad:
function addToDate(date, month) {
// ...
}

const date = new Date();

6
// It's hard to tell from the function name what is added
addToDate(date, 1);
Good:
function addMonthToDate(month, date) {
// ...
}

const date = new Date();


addMonthToDate(1, date);
� back to top

Functions should only be one level of abstraction


When you have more than one level of abstraction your function is usually doing
too much. Splitting up functions leads to reusability and easier testing.
Bad:
function parseBetterJSAlternative(code) {
const REGEXES = [
// ...
];

const statements = code.split(" ");


const tokens = [];
REGEXES.forEach(REGEX => {
statements.forEach(statement => {
// ...
});
});

const ast = [];


tokens.forEach(token => {
// lex...
});

ast.forEach(node => {
// parse...
});
}
Good:
function parseBetterJSAlternative(code) {
const tokens = tokenize(code);

7
const syntaxTree = parse(tokens);
syntaxTree.forEach(node => {
// parse...
});
}

function tokenize(code) {
const REGEXES = [
// ...
];

const statements = code.split(" ");


const tokens = [];
REGEXES.forEach(REGEX => {
statements.forEach(statement => {
tokens.push(/* ... */ );
});
});

return tokens;
}

function parse(tokens) {
const syntaxTree = [];
tokens.forEach(token => {
syntaxTree.push(/* ... */ );
});

return syntaxTree;
}
� back to top

Remove duplicate code


Do your absolute best to avoid duplicate code. Duplicate code is bad because it
means that there’s more than one place to alter something if you need to change
some logic.
Imagine if you run a restaurant and you keep track of your inventory: all your
tomatoes, onions, garlic, spices, etc. If you have multiple lists that you keep
this on, then all have to be updated when you serve a dish with tomatoes in
them. If you only have one list, there’s only one place to update!
Oftentimes you have duplicate code because you have two or more slightly dif-
ferent things, that share a lot in common, but their differences force you to have
two or more separate functions that do much of the same things. Removing du-

8
plicate code means creating an abstraction that can handle this set of different
things with just one function/module/class.
Getting the abstraction right is critical, that’s why you should follow the SOLID
principles laid out in the Classes section. Bad abstractions can be worse than
duplicate code, so be careful! Having said this, if you can make a good ab-
straction, do it! Don’t repeat yourself, otherwise you’ll find yourself updating
multiple places anytime you want to change one thing.
Bad:
function showDeveloperList(developers) {
developers.forEach(developer => {
const expectedSalary = developer.calculateExpectedSalary();
const experience = developer.getExperience();
const githubLink = developer.getGithubLink();
const data = {
expectedSalary,
experience,
githubLink
};

render(data);
});
}

function showManagerList(managers) {
managers.forEach(manager => {
const expectedSalary = manager.calculateExpectedSalary();
const experience = manager.getExperience();
const portfolio = manager.getMBAProjects();
const data = {
expectedSalary,
experience,
portfolio
};

render(data);
});
}
Good:
function showEmployeeList(employees) {
employees.forEach(employee => {
const expectedSalary = employee.calculateExpectedSalary();
const experience = employee.getExperience();

9
const data = {
expectedSalary,
experience
};

switch (employee.type) {
case "manager":
data.portfolio = employee.getMBAProjects();
break;
case "developer":
data.githubLink = employee.getGithubLink();
break;
}

render(data);
});
}
� back to top

Set default objects with Object.assign


Bad:
const menuConfig = {
title: null,
body: "Bar",
buttonText: null,
cancellable: true
};

function createMenu(config) {
config.title = config.title || "Foo";
config.body = config.body || "Bar";
config.buttonText = config.buttonText || "Baz";
config.cancellable =
config.cancellable !== undefined ? config.cancellable : true;
}

createMenu(menuConfig);
Good:
const menuConfig = {
title: "Order",
// User did not include 'body' key
buttonText: "Send",
cancellable: true

10
};

function createMenu(config) {
let finalConfig = Object.assign(
{
title: "Foo",
body: "Bar",
buttonText: "Baz",
cancellable: true
},
config
);
return finalConfig
// config now equals: {title: "Order", body: "Bar", buttonText: "Send", cancellable: true}
// ...
}

createMenu(menuConfig);
� back to top

Don’t use flags as function parameters


Flags tell your user that this function does more than one thing. Functions
should do one thing. Split out your functions if they are following different code
paths based on a boolean.
Bad:
function createFile(name, temp) {
if (temp) {
fs.create(`./temp/${name}`);
} else {
fs.create(name);
}
}
Good:
function createFile(name) {
fs.create(name);
}

function createTempFile(name) {
createFile(`./temp/${name}`);
}
� back to top

11
Avoid Side Effects (part 1)
A function produces a side effect if it does anything other than take a value
in and return another value or values. A side effect could be writing to a
file, modifying some global variable, or accidentally wiring all your money to a
stranger.
Now, you do need to have side effects in a program on occasion. Like the
previous example, you might need to write to a file. What you want to do is
to centralize where you are doing this. Don’t have several functions and classes
that write to a particular file. Have one service that does it. One and only one.
The main point is to avoid common pitfalls like sharing state between objects
without any structure, using mutable data types that can be written to by
anything, and not centralizing where your side effects occur. If you can do this,
you will be happier than the vast majority of other programmers.
Bad:
// Global variable referenced by following function.
// If we had another function that used this name, now it'd be an array and it could break i
let name = "Ryan McDermott";

function splitIntoFirstAndLastName() {
name = name.split(" ");
}

splitIntoFirstAndLastName();

console.log(name); // ['Ryan', 'McDermott'];


Good:
function splitIntoFirstAndLastName(name) {
return name.split(" ");
}

const name = "Ryan McDermott";


const newName = splitIntoFirstAndLastName(name);

console.log(name); // 'Ryan McDermott';


console.log(newName); // ['Ryan', 'McDermott'];
� back to top

Avoid Side Effects (part 2)


In JavaScript, some values are unchangeable (immutable) and some are change-
able (mutable). Objects and arrays are two kinds of mutable values so it’s
important to handle them carefully when they’re passed as parameters to a

12
function. A JavaScript function can change an object’s properties or alter the
contents of an array which could easily cause bugs elsewhere.
Suppose there’s a function that accepts an array parameter representing a shop-
ping cart. If the function makes a change in that shopping cart array - by adding
an item to purchase, for example - then any other function that uses that same
cart array will be affected by this addition. That may be great, however it
could also be bad. Let’s imagine a bad situation:
The user clicks the “Purchase” button which calls a purchase function that
spawns a network request and sends the cart array to the server. Because of a
bad network connection, the purchase function has to keep retrying the request.
Now, what if in the meantime the user accidentally clicks an “Add to Cart”
button on an item they don’t actually want before the network request begins?
If that happens and the network request begins, then that purchase function
will send the accidentally added item because the cart array was modified.
A great solution would be for the addItemToCart function to always clone the
cart, edit it, and return the clone. This would ensure that functions that are
still using the old shopping cart wouldn’t be affected by the changes.
Two caveats to mention to this approach:
1. There might be cases where you actually want to modify the input object,
but when you adopt this programming practice you will find that those
cases are pretty rare. Most things can be refactored to have no side effects!
2. Cloning big objects can be very expensive in terms of performance. Luck-
ily, this isn’t a big issue in practice because there are great libraries that
allow this kind of programming approach to be fast and not as memory
intensive as it would be for you to manually clone objects and arrays.
Bad:
const addItemToCart = (cart, item) => {
cart.push({ item, date: Date.now() });
};
Good:
const addItemToCart = (cart, item) => {
return [...cart, { item, date: Date.now() }];
};
� back to top

Don’t write to global functions


Polluting globals is a bad practice in JavaScript because you could clash with
another library and the user of your API would be none-the-wiser until they get
an exception in production. Let’s think about an example: what if you wanted

13
to extend JavaScript’s native Array method to have a diff method that could
show the difference between two arrays? You could write your new function
to the Array.prototype, but it could clash with another library that tried to
do the same thing. What if that other library was just using diff to find the
difference between the first and last elements of an array? This is why it would
be much better to just use ES2015/ES6 classes and simply extend the Array
global.
Bad:
Array.prototype.diff = function diff(comparisonArray) {
const hash = new Set(comparisonArray);
return this.filter(elem => !hash.has(elem));
};
Good:
class SuperArray extends Array {
diff(comparisonArray) {
const hash = new Set(comparisonArray);
return this.filter(elem => !hash.has(elem));
}
}
� back to top

Favor functional programming over imperative programming


JavaScript isn’t a functional language in the way that Haskell is, but it has a
functional flavor to it. Functional languages can be cleaner and easier to test.
Favor this style of programming when you can.
Bad:
const programmerOutput = [
{
name: "Uncle Bobby",
linesOfCode: 500
},
{
name: "Suzie Q",
linesOfCode: 1500
},
{
name: "Jimmy Gosling",
linesOfCode: 150
},
{
name: "Gracie Hopper",

14
linesOfCode: 1000
}
];

let totalOutput = 0;

for (let i = 0; i < programmerOutput.length; i++) {


totalOutput += programmerOutput[i].linesOfCode;
}
Good:
const programmerOutput = [
{
name: "Uncle Bobby",
linesOfCode: 500
},
{
name: "Suzie Q",
linesOfCode: 1500
},
{
name: "Jimmy Gosling",
linesOfCode: 150
},
{
name: "Gracie Hopper",
linesOfCode: 1000
}
];

const totalOutput = programmerOutput.reduce(


(totalLines, output) => totalLines + output.linesOfCode,
0
);
� back to top

Encapsulate conditionals
Bad:
if (fsm.state === "fetching" && isEmpty(listNode)) {
// ...
}
Good:
function shouldShowSpinner(fsm, listNode) {

15
return fsm.state === "fetching" && isEmpty(listNode);
}

if (shouldShowSpinner(fsmInstance, listNodeInstance)) {
// ...
}
� back to top

Avoid negative conditionals


Bad:
function isDOMNodeNotPresent(node) {
// ...
}

if (!isDOMNodeNotPresent(node)) {
// ...
}
Good:
function isDOMNodePresent(node) {
// ...
}

if (isDOMNodePresent(node)) {
// ...
}
� back to top

Avoid conditionals
This seems like an impossible task. Upon first hearing this, most people say,
“how am I supposed to do anything without an if statement?” The answer is
that you can use polymorphism to achieve the same task in many cases. The
second question is usually, “well that’s great but why would I want to do that?”
The answer is a previous clean code concept we learned: a function should only
do one thing. When you have classes and functions that have if statements, you
are telling your user that your function does more than one thing. Remember,
just do one thing.
Bad:
class Airplane {
// ...
getCruisingAltitude() {
switch (this.type) {

16
case "777":
return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getPassengerCount();
case "Air Force One":
return this.getMaxAltitude();
case "Cessna":
return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getFuelExpenditure();
}
}
}
Good:
class Airplane {
// ...
}

class Boeing777 extends Airplane {


// ...
getCruisingAltitude() {
return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getPassengerCount();
}
}

class AirForceOne extends Airplane {


// ...
getCruisingAltitude() {
return this.getMaxAltitude();
}
}

class Cessna extends Airplane {


// ...
getCruisingAltitude() {
return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getFuelExpenditure();
}
}
� back to top

Avoid type-checking (part 1)


JavaScript is untyped, which means your functions can take any type of argu-
ment. Sometimes you are bitten by this freedom and it becomes tempting to
do type-checking in your functions. There are many ways to avoid having to do
this. The first thing to consider is consistent APIs.
Bad:

17
function travelToTexas(vehicle) {
if (vehicle instanceof Bicycle) {
vehicle.pedal(this.currentLocation, new Location("texas"));
} else if (vehicle instanceof Car) {
vehicle.drive(this.currentLocation, new Location("texas"));
}
}
Good:
function travelToTexas(vehicle) {
vehicle.move(this.currentLocation, new Location("texas"));
}
� back to top

Avoid type-checking (part 2)


If you are working with basic primitive values like strings and integers, and you
can’t use polymorphism but you still feel the need to type-check, you should
consider using TypeScript. It is an excellent alternative to normal JavaScript,
as it provides you with static typing on top of standard JavaScript syntax. The
problem with manually type-checking normal JavaScript is that doing it well
requires so much extra verbiage that the faux “type-safety” you get doesn’t
make up for the lost readability. Keep your JavaScript clean, write good tests,
and have good code reviews. Otherwise, do all of that but with TypeScript
(which, like I said, is a great alternative!).
Bad:
function combine(val1, val2) {
if (
(typeof val1 === "number" && typeof val2 === "number") ||
(typeof val1 === "string" && typeof val2 === "string")
) {
return val1 + val2;
}

throw new Error("Must be of type String or Number");


}
Good:
function combine(val1, val2) {
return val1 + val2;
}
� back to top

18
Don’t over-optimize
Modern browsers do a lot of optimization under-the-hood at runtime. A lot of
times, if you are optimizing then you are just wasting your time. There are
good resources for seeing where optimization is lacking. Target those in the
meantime, until they are fixed if they can be.
Bad:
// On old browsers, each iteration with uncached `list.length` would be costly
// because of `list.length` recomputation. In modern browsers, this is optimized.
for (let i = 0, len = list.length; i < len; i++) {
// ...
}
Good:
for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
// ...
}
� back to top

Remove dead code


Dead code is just as bad as duplicate code. There’s no reason to keep it in your
codebase. If it’s not being called, get rid of it! It will still be safe in your version
history if you still need it.
Bad:
function oldRequestModule(url) {
// ...
}

function newRequestModule(url) {
// ...
}

const req = newRequestModule;


inventoryTracker("apples", req, "www.inventory-awesome.io");
Good:
function newRequestModule(url) {
// ...
}

const req = newRequestModule;


inventoryTracker("apples", req, "www.inventory-awesome.io");

19
� back to top

Objects and Data Structures


Use getters and setters
Using getters and setters to access data on objects could be better than simply
looking for a property on an object. “Why?” you might ask. Well, here’s an
unorganized list of reasons why:
• When you want to do more beyond getting an object property, you don’t
have to look up and change every accessor in your codebase.
• Makes adding validation simple when doing a set.
• Encapsulates the internal representation.
• Easy to add logging and error handling when getting and setting.
• You can lazy load your object’s properties, let’s say getting it from a
server.
Bad:
function makeBankAccount() {
// ...

return {
balance: 0
// ...
};
}

const account = makeBankAccount();


account.balance = 100;
Good:
function makeBankAccount() {
// this one is private
let balance = 0;

// a "getter", made public via the returned object below


function getBalance() {
return balance;
}

// a "setter", made public via the returned object below


function setBalance(amount) {
// ... validate before updating the balance
balance = amount;
}

20
return {
// ...
getBalance,
setBalance
};
}

const account = makeBankAccount();


account.setBalance(100);
� back to top

Make objects have private members


This can be accomplished through closures (for ES5 and below).
Bad:
const Employee = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};

Employee.prototype.getName = function getName() {


return this.name;
};

const employee = new Employee("John Doe");


console.log(`Employee name: ${employee.getName()}`); // Employee name: John Doe
delete employee.name;
console.log(`Employee name: ${employee.getName()}`); // Employee name: undefined
Good:
function makeEmployee(name) {
return {
getName() {
return name;
}
};
}

const employee = makeEmployee("John Doe");


console.log(`Employee name: ${employee.getName()}`); // Employee name: John Doe
delete employee.name;
console.log(`Employee name: ${employee.getName()}`); // Employee name: John Doe
� back to top

21
Classes
Prefer ES2015/ES6 classes over ES5 plain functions
It’s very difficult to get readable class inheritance, construction, and method
definitions for classical ES5 classes. If you need inheritance (and be aware
that you might not), then prefer ES2015/ES6 classes. However, prefer small
functions over classes until you find yourself needing larger and more complex
objects.
Bad:
const Animal = function(age) {
if (!(this instanceof Animal)) {
throw new Error("Instantiate Animal with `new`");
}

this.age = age;
};

Animal.prototype.move = function move() {};

const Mammal = function(age, furColor) {


if (!(this instanceof Mammal)) {
throw new Error("Instantiate Mammal with `new`");
}

Animal.call(this, age);
this.furColor = furColor;
};

Mammal.prototype = Object.create(Animal.prototype);
Mammal.prototype.constructor = Mammal;
Mammal.prototype.liveBirth = function liveBirth() {};

const Human = function(age, furColor, languageSpoken) {


if (!(this instanceof Human)) {
throw new Error("Instantiate Human with `new`");
}

Mammal.call(this, age, furColor);


this.languageSpoken = languageSpoken;
};

Human.prototype = Object.create(Mammal.prototype);
Human.prototype.constructor = Human;
Human.prototype.speak = function speak() {};

22
Good:
class Animal {
constructor(age) {
this.age = age;
}

move() {
/* ... */
}
}

class Mammal extends Animal {


constructor(age, furColor) {
super(age);
this.furColor = furColor;
}

liveBirth() {
/* ... */
}
}

class Human extends Mammal {


constructor(age, furColor, languageSpoken) {
super(age, furColor);
this.languageSpoken = languageSpoken;
}

speak() {
/* ... */
}
}
� back to top

Use method chaining


This pattern is very useful in JavaScript and you see it in many libraries such
as jQuery and Lodash. It allows your code to be expressive, and less verbose.
For that reason, I say, use method chaining and take a look at how clean your
code will be. In your class functions, simply return this at the end of every
function, and you can chain further class methods onto it.
Bad:
class Car {
constructor(make, model, color) {

23
this.make = make;
this.model = model;
this.color = color;
}

setMake(make) {
this.make = make;
}

setModel(model) {
this.model = model;
}

setColor(color) {
this.color = color;
}

save() {
console.log(this.make, this.model, this.color);
}
}

const car = new Car("Ford", "F-150", "red");


car.setColor("pink");
car.save();
Good:
class Car {
constructor(make, model, color) {
this.make = make;
this.model = model;
this.color = color;
}

setMake(make) {
this.make = make;
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}

setModel(model) {
this.model = model;
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}

24
setColor(color) {
this.color = color;
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}

save() {
console.log(this.make, this.model, this.color);
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}
}

const car = new Car("Ford", "F-150", "red").setColor("pink").save();


� back to top

Prefer composition over inheritance


As stated famously in Design Patterns by the Gang of Four, you should prefer
composition over inheritance where you can. There are lots of good reasons to
use inheritance and lots of good reasons to use composition. The main point for
this maxim is that if your mind instinctively goes for inheritance, try to think
if composition could model your problem better. In some cases it can.
You might be wondering then, “when should I use inheritance?” It depends on
your problem at hand, but this is a decent list of when inheritance makes more
sense than composition:
1. Your inheritance represents an “is-a” relationship and not a “has-a” rela-
tionship (Human->Animal vs. User->UserDetails).
2. You can reuse code from the base classes (Humans can move like all ani-
mals).
3. You want to make global changes to derived classes by changing a base
class. (Change the caloric expenditure of all animals when they move).
Bad:
class Employee {
constructor(name, email) {
this.name = name;
this.email = email;
}

// ...
}

// Bad because Employees "have" tax data. EmployeeTaxData is not a type of Employee

25
class EmployeeTaxData extends Employee {
constructor(ssn, salary) {
super();
this.ssn = ssn;
this.salary = salary;
}

// ...
}
Good:
class EmployeeTaxData {
constructor(ssn, salary) {
this.ssn = ssn;
this.salary = salary;
}

// ...
}

class Employee {
constructor(name, email) {
this.name = name;
this.email = email;
}

setTaxData(ssn, salary) {
this.taxData = new EmployeeTaxData(ssn, salary);
}
// ...
}
� back to top

SOLID
Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
As stated in Clean Code, “There should never be more than one reason for a
class to change”. It’s tempting to jam-pack a class with a lot of functionality,
like when you can only take one suitcase on your flight. The issue with this is
that your class won’t be conceptually cohesive and it will give it many reasons to
change. Minimizing the amount of times you need to change a class is important.
It’s important because if too much functionality is in one class and you modify a
piece of it, it can be difficult to understand how that will affect other dependent
modules in your codebase.

26
Bad:
class UserSettings {
constructor(user) {
this.user = user;
}

changeSettings(settings) {
if (this.verifyCredentials()) {
// ...
}
}

verifyCredentials() {
// ...
}
}
Good:
class UserAuth {
constructor(user) {
this.user = user;
}

verifyCredentials() {
// ...
}
}

class UserSettings {
constructor(user) {
this.user = user;
this.auth = new UserAuth(user);
}

changeSettings(settings) {
if (this.auth.verifyCredentials()) {
// ...
}
}
}
� back to top

27
Open/Closed Principle (OCP)
As stated by Bertrand Meyer, “software entities (classes, modules, functions,
etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification.” What does
that mean though? This principle basically states that you should allow users
to add new functionalities without changing existing code.
Bad:
class AjaxAdapter extends Adapter {
constructor() {
super();
this.name = "ajaxAdapter";
}
}

class NodeAdapter extends Adapter {


constructor() {
super();
this.name = "nodeAdapter";
}
}

class HttpRequester {
constructor(adapter) {
this.adapter = adapter;
}

fetch(url) {
if (this.adapter.name === "ajaxAdapter") {
return makeAjaxCall(url).then(response => {
// transform response and return
});
} else if (this.adapter.name === "nodeAdapter") {
return makeHttpCall(url).then(response => {
// transform response and return
});
}
}
}

function makeAjaxCall(url) {
// request and return promise
}

function makeHttpCall(url) {
// request and return promise

28
}
Good:
class AjaxAdapter extends Adapter {
constructor() {
super();
this.name = "ajaxAdapter";
}

request(url) {
// request and return promise
}
}

class NodeAdapter extends Adapter {


constructor() {
super();
this.name = "nodeAdapter";
}

request(url) {
// request and return promise
}
}

class HttpRequester {
constructor(adapter) {
this.adapter = adapter;
}

fetch(url) {
return this.adapter.request(url).then(response => {
// transform response and return
});
}
}
� back to top

Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)


This is a scary term for a very simple concept. It’s formally defined as “If S is
a subtype of T, then objects of type T may be replaced with objects of type S
(i.e., objects of type S may substitute objects of type T) without altering any
of the desirable properties of that program (correctness, task performed, etc.).”
That’s an even scarier definition.

29
The best explanation for this is if you have a parent class and a child class,
then the base class and child class can be used interchangeably without getting
incorrect results. This might still be confusing, so let’s take a look at the
classic Square-Rectangle example. Mathematically, a square is a rectangle, but
if you model it using the “is-a” relationship via inheritance, you quickly get into
trouble.
Bad:
class Rectangle {
constructor() {
this.width = 0;
this.height = 0;
}

setColor(color) {
// ...
}

render(area) {
// ...
}

setWidth(width) {
this.width = width;
}

setHeight(height) {
this.height = height;
}

getArea() {
return this.width * this.height;
}
}

class Square extends Rectangle {


setWidth(width) {
this.width = width;
this.height = width;
}

setHeight(height) {
this.width = height;
this.height = height;
}
}

30
function renderLargeRectangles(rectangles) {
rectangles.forEach(rectangle => {
rectangle.setWidth(4);
rectangle.setHeight(5);
const area = rectangle.getArea(); // BAD: Returns 25 for Square. Should be 20.
rectangle.render(area);
});
}

const rectangles = [new Rectangle(), new Rectangle(), new Square()];


renderLargeRectangles(rectangles);
Good:
class Shape {
setColor(color) {
// ...
}

render(area) {
// ...
}
}

class Rectangle extends Shape {


constructor(width, height) {
super();
this.width = width;
this.height = height;
}

getArea() {
return this.width * this.height;
}
}

class Square extends Shape {


constructor(length) {
super();
this.length = length;
}

getArea() {
return this.length * this.length;
}
}

31
function renderLargeShapes(shapes) {
shapes.forEach(shape => {
const area = shape.getArea();
shape.render(area);
});
}

const shapes = [new Rectangle(4, 5), new Rectangle(4, 5), new Square(5)];
renderLargeShapes(shapes);
� back to top

Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)


JavaScript doesn’t have interfaces so this principle doesn’t apply as strictly as
others. However, it’s important and relevant even with JavaScript’s lack of type
system.
ISP states that “Clients should not be forced to depend upon interfaces that
they do not use.” Interfaces are implicit contracts in JavaScript because of duck
typing.
A good example to look at that demonstrates this principle in JavaScript is for
classes that require large settings objects. Not requiring clients to setup huge
amounts of options is beneficial, because most of the time they won’t need all
of the settings. Making them optional helps prevent having a “fat interface”.
Bad:
class DOMTraverser {
constructor(settings) {
this.settings = settings;
this.setup();
}

setup() {
this.rootNode = this.settings.rootNode;
this.settings.animationModule.setup();
}

traverse() {
// ...
}
}

const $ = new DOMTraverser({


rootNode: document.getElementsByTagName("body"),

32
animationModule() {} // Most of the time, we won't need to animate when traversing.
// ...
});
Good:
class DOMTraverser {
constructor(settings) {
this.settings = settings;
this.options = settings.options;
this.setup();
}

setup() {
this.rootNode = this.settings.rootNode;
this.setupOptions();
}

setupOptions() {
if (this.options.animationModule) {
// ...
}
}

traverse() {
// ...
}
}

const $ = new DOMTraverser({


rootNode: document.getElementsByTagName("body"),
options: {
animationModule() {}
}
});
� back to top

Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)


This principle states two essential things:
1. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should
depend on abstractions.
2. Abstractions should not depend upon details. Details should depend on
abstractions.
This can be hard to understand at first, but if you’ve worked with AngularJS,

33
you’ve seen an implementation of this principle in the form of Dependency Injec-
tion (DI). While they are not identical concepts, DIP keeps high-level modules
from knowing the details of its low-level modules and setting them up. It can
accomplish this through DI. A huge benefit of this is that it reduces the coupling
between modules. Coupling is a very bad development pattern because it makes
your code hard to refactor.
As stated previously, JavaScript doesn’t have interfaces so the abstractions that
are depended upon are implicit contracts. That is to say, the methods and prop-
erties that an object/class exposes to another object/class. In the example below,
the implicit contract is that any Request module for an InventoryTracker will
have a requestItems method.
Bad:
class InventoryRequester {
constructor() {
this.REQ_METHODS = ["HTTP"];
}

requestItem(item) {
// ...
}
}

class InventoryTracker {
constructor(items) {
this.items = items;

// BAD: We have created a dependency on a specific request implementation.


// We should just have requestItems depend on a request method: `request`
this.requester = new InventoryRequester();
}

requestItems() {
this.items.forEach(item => {
this.requester.requestItem(item);
});
}
}

const inventoryTracker = new InventoryTracker(["apples", "bananas"]);


inventoryTracker.requestItems();
Good:
class InventoryTracker {
constructor(items, requester) {

34
this.items = items;
this.requester = requester;
}

requestItems() {
this.items.forEach(item => {
this.requester.requestItem(item);
});
}
}

class InventoryRequesterV1 {
constructor() {
this.REQ_METHODS = ["HTTP"];
}

requestItem(item) {
// ...
}
}

class InventoryRequesterV2 {
constructor() {
this.REQ_METHODS = ["WS"];
}

requestItem(item) {
// ...
}
}

// By constructing our dependencies externally and injecting them, we can easily


// substitute our request module for a fancy new one that uses WebSockets.
const inventoryTracker = new InventoryTracker(
["apples", "bananas"],
new InventoryRequesterV2()
);
inventoryTracker.requestItems();
� back to top

Testing
Testing is more important than shipping. If you have no tests or an inadequate
amount, then every time you ship code you won’t be sure that you didn’t break
anything. Deciding on what constitutes an adequate amount is up to your team,

35
but having 100% coverage (all statements and branches) is how you achieve very
high confidence and developer peace of mind. This means that in addition to
having a great testing framework, you also need to use a good coverage tool.
There’s no excuse to not write tests. There are plenty of good JS test frame-
works, so find one that your team prefers. When you find one that works for
your team, then aim to always write tests for every new feature/module you
introduce. If your preferred method is Test Driven Development (TDD), that
is great, but the main point is to just make sure you are reaching your coverage
goals before launching any feature, or refactoring an existing one.

Single concept per test


Bad:
import assert from "assert";

describe("MomentJS", () => {
it("handles date boundaries", () => {
let date;

date = new MomentJS("1/1/2015");


date.addDays(30);
assert.equal("1/31/2015", date);

date = new MomentJS("2/1/2016");


date.addDays(28);
assert.equal("02/29/2016", date);

date = new MomentJS("2/1/2015");


date.addDays(28);
assert.equal("03/01/2015", date);
});
});
Good:
import assert from "assert";

describe("MomentJS", () => {
it("handles 30-day months", () => {
const date = new MomentJS("1/1/2015");
date.addDays(30);
assert.equal("1/31/2015", date);
});

it("handles leap year", () => {


const date = new MomentJS("2/1/2016");

36
date.addDays(28);
assert.equal("02/29/2016", date);
});

it("handles non-leap year", () => {


const date = new MomentJS("2/1/2015");
date.addDays(28);
assert.equal("03/01/2015", date);
});
});
� back to top

Concurrency
Use Promises, not callbacks
Callbacks aren’t clean, and they cause excessive amounts of nesting. With
ES2015/ES6, Promises are a built-in global type. Use them!
Bad:
import { get } from "request";
import { writeFile } from "fs";

get(
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin",
(requestErr, response, body) => {
if (requestErr) {
console.error(requestErr);
} else {
writeFile("article.html", body, writeErr => {
if (writeErr) {
console.error(writeErr);
} else {
console.log("File written");
}
});
}
}
);
Good:
import { get } from "request-promise";
import { writeFile } from "fs-extra";

get("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin")
.then(body => {

37
return writeFile("article.html", body);
})
.then(() => {
console.log("File written");
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
� back to top

Async/Await are even cleaner than Promises


Promises are a very clean alternative to callbacks, but ES2017/ES8 brings async
and await which offer an even cleaner solution. All you need is a function that
is prefixed in an async keyword, and then you can write your logic impera-
tively without a then chain of functions. Use this if you can take advantage of
ES2017/ES8 features today!
Bad:
import { get } from "request-promise";
import { writeFile } from "fs-extra";

get("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin")
.then(body => {
return writeFile("article.html", body);
})
.then(() => {
console.log("File written");
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
Good:
import { get } from "request-promise";
import { writeFile } from "fs-extra";

async function getCleanCodeArticle() {


try {
const body = await get(
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin"
);
await writeFile("article.html", body);
console.log("File written");
} catch (err) {

38
console.error(err);
}
}

getCleanCodeArticle()
� back to top

Error Handling
Thrown errors are a good thing! They mean the runtime has successfully iden-
tified when something in your program has gone wrong and it’s letting you
know by stopping function execution on the current stack, killing the process
(in Node), and notifying you in the console with a stack trace.

Don’t ignore caught errors


Doing nothing with a caught error doesn’t give you the ability to ever fix or
react to said error. Logging the error to the console (console.log) isn’t much
better as often times it can get lost in a sea of things printed to the console. If
you wrap any bit of code in a try/catch it means you think an error may occur
there and therefore you should have a plan, or create a code path, for when it
occurs.
Bad:
try {
functionThatMightThrow();
} catch (error) {
console.log(error);
}
Good:
try {
functionThatMightThrow();
} catch (error) {
// One option (more noisy than console.log):
console.error(error);
// Another option:
notifyUserOfError(error);
// Another option:
reportErrorToService(error);
// OR do all three!
}

Don’t ignore rejected promises


For the same reason you shouldn’t ignore caught errors from try/catch.

39
Bad:
getdata()
.then(data => {
functionThatMightThrow(data);
})
.catch(error => {
console.log(error);
});
Good:
getdata()
.then(data => {
functionThatMightThrow(data);
})
.catch(error => {
// One option (more noisy than console.log):
console.error(error);
// Another option:
notifyUserOfError(error);
// Another option:
reportErrorToService(error);
// OR do all three!
});
� back to top

Formatting
Formatting is subjective. Like many rules herein, there is no hard and fast rule
that you must follow. The main point is DO NOT ARGUE over formatting.
There are tons of tools to automate this. Use one! It’s a waste of time and
money for engineers to argue over formatting.
For things that don’t fall under the purview of automatic formatting (indenta-
tion, tabs vs. spaces, double vs. single quotes, etc.) look here for some guidance.

Use consistent capitalization


JavaScript is untyped, so capitalization tells you a lot about your variables,
functions, etc. These rules are subjective, so your team can choose whatever
they want. The point is, no matter what you all choose, just be consistent.
Bad:
const DAYS_IN_WEEK = 7;
const daysInMonth = 30;

40
const songs = ["Back In Black", "Stairway to Heaven", "Hey Jude"];
const Artists = ["ACDC", "Led Zeppelin", "The Beatles"];

function eraseDatabase() {}
function restore_database() {}

class animal {}
class Alpaca {}
Good:
const DAYS_IN_WEEK = 7;
const DAYS_IN_MONTH = 30;

const SONGS = ["Back In Black", "Stairway to Heaven", "Hey Jude"];


const ARTISTS = ["ACDC", "Led Zeppelin", "The Beatles"];

function eraseDatabase() {}
function restoreDatabase() {}

class Animal {}
class Alpaca {}
� back to top

Function callers and callees should be close


If a function calls another, keep those functions vertically close in the source
file. Ideally, keep the caller right above the callee. We tend to read code from
top-to-bottom, like a newspaper. Because of this, make your code read that
way.
Bad:
class PerformanceReview {
constructor(employee) {
this.employee = employee;
}

lookupPeers() {
return db.lookup(this.employee, "peers");
}

lookupManager() {
return db.lookup(this.employee, "manager");
}

getPeerReviews() {

41
const peers = this.lookupPeers();
// ...
}

perfReview() {
this.getPeerReviews();
this.getManagerReview();
this.getSelfReview();
}

getManagerReview() {
const manager = this.lookupManager();
}

getSelfReview() {
// ...
}
}

const review = new PerformanceReview(employee);


review.perfReview();
Good:
class PerformanceReview {
constructor(employee) {
this.employee = employee;
}

perfReview() {
this.getPeerReviews();
this.getManagerReview();
this.getSelfReview();
}

getPeerReviews() {
const peers = this.lookupPeers();
// ...
}

lookupPeers() {
return db.lookup(this.employee, "peers");
}

getManagerReview() {
const manager = this.lookupManager();
}

42
lookupManager() {
return db.lookup(this.employee, "manager");
}

getSelfReview() {
// ...
}
}

const review = new PerformanceReview(employee);


review.perfReview();
� back to top

Comments
Only comment things that have business logic complexity.
Comments are an apology, not a requirement. Good code mostly documents
itself.
Bad:
function hashIt(data) {
// The hash
let hash = 0;

// Length of string
const length = data.length;

// Loop through every character in data


for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
// Get character code.
const char = data.charCodeAt(i);
// Make the hash
hash = (hash << 5) - hash + char;
// Convert to 32-bit integer
hash &= hash;
}
}
Good:
function hashIt(data) {
let hash = 0;
const length = data.length;

for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {

43
const char = data.charCodeAt(i);
hash = (hash << 5) - hash + char;

// Convert to 32-bit integer


hash &= hash;
}
}
� back to top

Don’t leave commented out code in your codebase


Version control exists for a reason. Leave old code in your history.
Bad:
doStuff();
// doOtherStuff();
// doSomeMoreStuff();
// doSoMuchStuff();
Good:
doStuff();
� back to top

Don’t have journal comments


Remember, use version control! There’s no need for dead code, commented
code, and especially journal comments. Use git log to get history!
Bad:
/**
* 2016-12-20: Removed monads, didn't understand them (RM)
* 2016-10-01: Improved using special monads (JP)
* 2016-02-03: Removed type-checking (LI)
* 2015-03-14: Added combine with type-checking (JR)
*/
function combine(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
Good:
function combine(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
� back to top

44
Avoid positional markers
They usually just add noise. Let the functions and variable names along with
the proper indentation and formatting give the visual structure to your code.
Bad:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Scope Model Instantiation
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
$scope.model = {
menu: "foo",
nav: "bar"
};

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Action setup
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
const actions = function() {
// ...
};
Good:
$scope.model = {
menu: "foo",
nav: "bar"
};

const actions = function() {


// ...
};
� back to top

Translation
This is also available in other languages:

• Armenian: hanumanum/clean-code-javascript/

• Bangla(�����): InsomniacSabbir/clean-code-javascript/

• Brazilian Portuguese: fesnt/clean-code-javascript

• Simplified Chinese:
– alivebao/clean-code-js

45
– beginor/clean-code-javascript

• Traditional Chinese: AllJointTW/clean-code-javascript

• French: eugene-augier/clean-code-javascript-fr

• German: marcbruederlin/clean-code-javascript

• Indonesia: andirkh/clean-code-javascript/

• Italian: frappacchio/clean-code-javascript/

• Japanese: mitsuruog/clean-code-javascript/

• Korean: qkraudghgh/clean-code-javascript-ko

• Polish: greg-dev/clean-code-javascript-pl

• Russian:
– BoryaMogila/clean-code-javascript-ru/
– maksugr/clean-code-javascript

• Spanish: tureey/clean-code-javascript

• Spanish: andersontr15/clean-code-javascript

• Serbian: doskovicmilos/clean-code-javascript/

• Turkish: bsonmez/clean-code-javascript

• Ukrainian: mindfr1k/clean-code-javascript-ua

• Vietnamese: hienvd/clean-code-javascript/
� back to top

46

You might also like