Don't Call Us, We'll Call You: Characterizing Callbacks in Javascript
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JavaScript is a popular language for developing web applications and is increasingly used for both client-side and server-side application logic. The JavaScript runtime is inherently event-driven and callbacks are a key language feature. Unfortunately, callbacks induce a non-linear control flow and can be deferred to execute asynchronously, declared anonymously, and may be nested to arbitrary levels. All of these features make callbacks difficult to understand and maintain. We perform an empirical study to characterize JavaScript callback usage across a representative corpus of 138 JavaScript programs, with over 5 million lines of JavaScript code. We find that on average, every 10th function definition takes a callback argument, and that over 43% of all callback-accepting function callsites are anonymous. Furthermore, the majority of callbacks are nested, more than half of all callbacks are asynchronous, and asynchronous callbacks, on average, appear more frequently in client-side code (72%) than server-side (55%). We also study three well-known solutions designed to help with the complexities associated with callbacks, including the error-first callback convention, Async.js library, and Promises. Our results inform the design of future JavaScript analysis and code comprehension tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".