Bind your functions with this one weird trick!

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

I write this post with hesitation but excitement. I have enjoyed playing around with the new ECMAScript function bind syntax as proposed here. This is a very early proposal for addition in ES2016 (ES7, whatever) and could drastically change or even be scrapped. Therefore, I recognize that this post may become obsolete.

I hope by advocating for this syntax, it will get the attention it deserves so that it will become standard ES syntax. I find it to be a very versatile and welcome tool in my JavaScript arsenal.

The Syntax

So what does the syntax actually look like?

syntax.js link // Binding a function to a context let log = :: console . log ; // Calling functions with a context let foo = {}; function bar () { log ( this ); } function world ( a ) { log ( this , a ); } foo : : bar (); function hello () { foo : : world (... arguments ); }

That’s pretty much it. The proposal introduces a new :: operator that simplifies function binding. Essentially, it offers syntactic sugar for calling the bind , call , and apply methods on Function.prototype . The equivalent ES5 code is below:

syntax-compiled.js link // Binding a function to a context var log = console . log . bind ( console ); // Calling functions with a context var foo = {}; function bar () { log ( this ); } function world ( a ) { log ( this , a ); } bar . call ( foo ); function hello () { world . apply ( foo , arguments ); }

We could call it a day at that, but I don’t want to devalue the power that this syntax affords us. Let’s explore the ramifications of this syntax further.

Iteration

How often have you done something like this in your JavaScript code?

es5-iteration.js link var ArrayProto = Array . prototype ; var map = ArrayProto . map ; var filter = ArrayProto . filter ; var todoItems = document . querySelectorAll ( 'ul.my-list > li' ); var completedItems = filter . call ( todoItems , function ( item ) { return item . dataset . completed ; }); var titles = map . call ( todoItems , function ( item ) { return item . textContent ; });

Granted, you might be using a framework for your Todo app or a library like lodash for iteration, but I don’t doubt we’ve all used the native Array methods on a different context at some point. It’s tedious and messy, but it gets the job done.

Now, with function bind syntax, we can make this code more expressive and elegant:

es7-iteration.js link let { map , filter } = Array . prototype ; let todoItems = document . querySelectorAll ( 'ul.my-list > li' ); let completedItems = todoItems :: filter ( item => item . dataset . completed ); let titles = todoItems :: map ( item => item . textContent );

The semantics remain the same, yet this reads more naturally and hides away the uglier syntax we’re accustomed to.

If you visit the proposal (link), you’ll see another example where we can import helper functions from a hypothetical iteration library to iterate over a collection. This creates a better separation of concerns between data structures and function calls on those structures through generalization.

Maybe your data structure needs to provide only one function for iteration, and then you can import iteration “methods” that depend on the function. This creates modularization possibilities in our JavaScript code similar to Ruby’s Enumerable module (link).

Callbacks

Another common pattern in JavaScript is passing callbacks to another function like an event library. This becomes tricky when we desire a specific this context for our callback. Normally, we have to create a reference to this in a separate variable and refer to it in our callback, or we call Function.prototype.bind on our callback, passing in this .

es5-callbacks.js link var eventLib = require ( 'eventLib' ); var self = this ; eventLib . on ( 'foo' , function () { self . gotFoo (); }); eventLib . on ( 'bar' , this . gotBar . bind ( this )); eventLib . on ( 'log' , console . log . bind ( console ));

Again, this is a little messy and slightly ugly. But with function bind syntax, it becomes drastically simpler:

es7-callbacks.js link import eventLib from 'eventLib' ; eventLib . on ( 'foo' , :: this . gotFoo ); eventLib . on ( 'bar' , :: this . gotBar ); eventLib . on ( 'log' , :: console . log );

This is powerfully expressive. No function wrapping. No explicit bind calls (we’re obviously still calling it via :: , but we hide away those details). We are declaring our intent that these functions should be called in response to an event, and we’re ensuring our this context with minimal effort.

Chaining

If I wasn’t already convinced by the function bind syntax, chaining is what really sold it for me. Recently, I have been using PhantomCSS and CasperJS for a CSS refactoring endeavor. Of course, I’m on the up-and-up and utilizing ES2015 via Babel to write my test suite. If you have not heard of PhantomCSS or CasperJS, I encourage you to check them out. PhantomCSS is a very promising project for automating visual regressions of your website. CasperJS is a wrapper over PhantomJS and SlimerJS, offering a higher-level API.

For this particular project, I represent web pages as classes according to a minimal interface. They each have a run method that takes in my casper instance. From there, each class chains method calls on my casper instance, returning the result. It’s very “promisey.” (I also added a few custom methods to my instance to wrap over some other methods to make them more “promisey.”)

To avoid duplication in some classes, I wanted to add some methods to the casper instance that are specific to the concerns of that page. However, I didn’t want to pollute the actual object instance. Function bind syntax to the rescue!

es7-casper-chaining.js link class HomePage { run ( casper ) { function thenClickInMySection ( n , selector ) { return this . thenClick ( ` . my - section : nth - of - type ( $ { n }) $ { selector } ` ); } function thenScreenshotContainer ( name ) { return this . thenScreenshot ( '#container' , name ); } return casper . thenVisit ( 'http://my-url.com/home' ) . thenScreenshot ( 'body' , 'home' ) :: thenClickInMySection ( 1 , '.foo' ) :: thenScreenshotContainer ( 'foo' ) . thenClick ( '.cancel' ) :: thenClickInMySection ( 2 , '.bar' ) :: thenScreenshotContainer ( 'bar' ); } }

That is amazing! I can naturally express the chaining semantics while decorating my instance without altering it. Just as a reminder of what we would probably have to do without function bind syntax, here is some equivalent ES2015 code:

es6-casper-chaining.js link class HomePage { run ( casper ) { function thenClickInMySection ( n , selector ) { return casper . thenClick ( ` . my - section : nth - of - type ( $ { n }) $ { selector } ` ); } function thenScreenshotContainer ( name ) { return casper . thenScreenshot ( '#container' , name ); } casper = casper . thenVisit ( 'http://my-url.com/home' ) . thenScreenshot ( 'body' , 'home' ); casper = thenClickInMySection ( 1 , '.foo' ); casper = thenScreenshotContainer ( 'foo' ); casper = casper . thenClick ( '.cancel' ); casper = thenClickInMySection ( 2 , '.bar' ); casper = thenScreenshotContainer ( 'bar' ); return casper ; } }

It gets the job done, but it doesn’t flow as nicely as our chaining example. Function bind syntax allows us to reduce how much code we write and effectively express this notion of flowing through each step.

Getting Started

If you’d like to try out function bind syntax, then I encourage you check it out with Babel. If you’ve not heard of Babel, it’s a transpiler that transforms ES2015/2016 code into ES5. You can learn more about Babel from its website (link) and learn how to use function bind syntax here.

Gripes, Caveats, Wishlist

I don’t think this syntax is without its faults. I’m not entirely sold on the actual :: operator yet. Maybe it’s the baggage I carry from other languages like Ruby, PHP, and CoffeeScript, each which use that operator for different semantics. Another option might be the -> operator, but it’s not my favorite either (burnout from PHP and C, no doubt). The :: operator might be the best solution, and I don’t necessarily hate it.

I haven’t dived into the discussion over this spec, but to my knowledge there is no affordance for partial application via this syntax. Recall that the bind method on Function.prototype can also partially apply parameters to the bound function by passing in additional arguments.

es5-partial-application.js link var DEBUG = console . log . bind ( console , 'DEBUG:' ); function add ( x , y ) { return x + y ; } var add1 = add . bind ( null , 1 ); var three = add1 ( 2 ); DEBUG ( three ); // prints "DEBUG: 3"

I would like to see some type of partial application syntax, especially as we continue to push the boundaries of functional-style programming in JavaScript. Alas, I recognize that designing clean, efficient syntax is difficult. This may just not be possible. Some quick ideas for a syntax could be:

es7-partial-application.js link const DEBUG1 = :: console . log ( 'DEBUG:' ); // Currently calls the function back on the same receiver // var DEBUG1 = console.log.call(console, 'DEBUG:'); const DEBUG2 = :: console . log [ 'DEBUG:' ]; // This clashes with existing [] semantics // var DEBUG2 = console.log['DEBUG:'].bind(console); const DEBUG3 = :: console . log < 'DEBUG:' > ; // SyntaxError const DEBUG4 = :: console . log { 'DEBUG:' }; // SyntaxError function add ( x , y ) { return x + y ; } let add1 = :: add ( 1 ); // SyntaxError (we need a context for the bind operator) // ...

Conclusion

Despite my small gripes and wishes, I readily welcome this proposal for ES2016 and hope the maintainers strongly consider its inclusion. This syntax opens up the door for writing cleaner and more expressive JavaScript.