Chaining should be an operator in the language itself

What is chaining?

jQuery at least popularized this pattern:

	.attr('title', 'Changing some title')
	.text('here is content for you')
	.on('click', () => { alert('clicked'); });

The above code could also be written like this:

$('.someElement').attr('title', 'Changing some title');
$('.someElement').text('here is content for you')
$('.someElement').on('click', () => { alert('clicked'); });

// or to not query DOM multiple times, save the reference in a variable:

const el = $('.someElement');

So the chaining pattern is essentially just for making code shorter/prettier by not having to repeat the subject of the multiple operations that we’re doing.

If you’d take a look at the definition of that attr(), it’d look something like this:

jqueryset.prototype.attr = function (key, value) {
	// ... here some actual stuff related changing element attribute

	return this; // this is required to enable chaining

The problem

There are downsides to this:

  • Each function has to explicitly support chaining. If you want to use chaining and the function doesn’t return anything, you have to go add return this first.
  • This means that you cannot change the function in the future to actually return something important (like event listener count in the on() example), since the return value is now explicitly reserved for chaining.
  • This is not semantic. Seeing function signature to return same type as the instance it was called on does not directly tell you if it’s for chaining, or if it for example makes an another instance of the same type (think clone-type functions or copy constructors)

There are actually security issues with this approach. E.g. jQuery’s text() is two different APIs:

  • Get text, if called without arguments
  • Set text, if called with arguments

That might make for pretty code, but it’s a dangerous design decision. Since in JavaScript there is no distinction between function argument not given vs. value that is simply undefined, this can happen:

const textFromSomewhere = fetchText();

const elementCount = $('.someElement')

console.log('Count of .someElement in page:', elementCount);

jQuery’s .length reports count of elements that were found (in this case with selector .someElement). But what happens is if fetchText() returns undefined for some reason? Since you end up calling .text(undefined), semantics of text() changes to getter (instead of setter) and you’ll be returned a string with text from the DOM element. If the DOM element contained foo as text, due to chaining you will end up calling "foo".length which makes your code think there were three .someElement in the page, which clearly was not your intent.

Are you really comfortable with code whose functionality accidentally changes, if you and everybody in your team at coding time don’t exactly know when undefined can happen and how these caveats trigger?

There was actually a problem at work with one project related to this, so this is not a theoretical issue. The security issues are not limited to the harmless example I gave you. In reality your program can unexpectedly crash or at worst it could be an attack vector.

The solution

As suggested in the title of this post, the chaining operator should be at the language level. Just as a though exercice, the operator could look like this:

	| .attr('title', 'Changing some title')
	| .text('here is content for you')
	| .on('click', () => { alert('clicked'); });

This could be easily under the covers rewritten by the compiler to this form:

const _chain = $('.someElement')
_chain.attr('title', 'Changing some title')
_chain.text('here is content for you')
_chain.on('click', () => { alert('clicked'); });

This would fix all the downsides:

  • Chaining support need not be implemented in every function you want to use chaining with
  • Function’s return value is not reserved for chaining use
  • Code is more semantic, since on(event: string, listener: function): void type functions can remain void instead of confusing return type just for chaining purpose
  • No security issues. You can see that the compiler-rewritten version is safe from the security issue I previously described. You would not accidentally call .length on the wrong object