[shtylman]

The generator example has no error handling (at least not from what I can see).

Once the "callback hell" example was re-written with named functions, it is not much different than the generator example and depending on how you are testing, easier to test because it separates out IO from logic (Which you could still do in the generator example).

One thing callback style code has begun to make me think about is the nesting/IO complexity of the functions a I write. When you nest, the IO/event boundary is visible in the code (by the indentation). As you continue to nest, you can start to get a clear idea of the amount of IO being done and where a particular function may be doing too much. Anyhow, most of this is preference anyway :)

[sync]

A simple try/catch around the whole thing would take care of error handling for the generator example.

[inglor]

only until you have a syntax error :)