为了避免针对每种不同类型的错误的样板文件，我将一些解决方案的智慧结合到createErrorType函数中:

function createErrorType(name, init) {
  function E(message) {
    if (!Error.captureStackTrace)
      this.stack = (new Error()).stack;
    else
      Error.captureStackTrace(this, this.constructor);
    this.message = message;
    init && init.apply(this, arguments);
  }
  E.prototype = new Error();
  E.prototype.name = name;
  E.prototype.constructor = E;
  return E;
}

然后，您可以轻松地定义新的错误类型，如下所示:

var NameError = createErrorType('NameError', function (name, invalidChar) {
  this.message = 'The name ' + name + ' may not contain ' + invalidChar;
});

var UnboundError = createErrorType('UnboundError', function (variableName) {
  this.message = 'Variable ' + variableName + ' is not bound';
});

Crescent Fresh的答案是误导性的。尽管他的警告是无效的，但还有其他一些限制他没有提到。

首先，Crescent的“警告:”段落中的推理没有意义。这种解释意味着，与多个catch语句相比，编码“一堆if (error instanceof MyError) else…”在某种程度上是累赘或冗长的。单个catch块中的多个instanceof语句与多个catch语句一样简洁——干净简洁的代码，没有任何技巧。这是模拟Java出色的特定于可抛出子类型的错误处理的好方法。

WRT“显示子类的消息属性没有得到设置”，如果使用正确构造的Error子类，则不会出现这种情况。要创建自己的ErrorX Error子类，只需复制以"var MyError ="开头的代码块，将"MyError"改为"ErrorX"。(如果您想向子类添加自定义方法，请遵循示例文本)。

The real and significant limitation of JavaScript error subclassing is that for JavaScript implementations or debuggers that track and report on stack trace and location-of-instantiation, like FireFox, a location in your own Error subclass implementation will be recorded as the instantiation point of the class, whereas if you used a direct Error, it would be the location where you ran "new Error(...)"). IE users would probably never notice, but users of Fire Bug on FF will see useless file name and line number values reported alongside these Errors, and will have to drill down on the stack trace to element #1 to find the real instantiation location.

在ES6:

class MyError extends Error {
  constructor(message) {
    super(message);
    this.name = 'MyError';
  }
}

源

这并不复杂，但我个人认为这是扩展错误的最简单方法。

export default class ExtendableError extends Error {
    constructor(message) {
        super(message);
        this.name = this.constructor.name;
    }
}

创建一个名为ExtendableError的实用程序类。这个实用程序类的目的是与普通的Error类类似，但在默认情况下将name属性更改为类的名称，因此很容易扩展错误。

现在，如果您想扩展一个错误，它只需要一行。

class MyError extends ExtendableError {}

如果你不关心错误的性能，这是你能做的最小的

Object.setPrototypeOf(MyError.prototype, Error.prototype)
function MyError(message) {
    const error = new Error(message)
    Object.setPrototypeOf(error, MyError.prototype);
    return error
}

你可以不使用new只使用MyError(message)

通过在构造函数Error被调用后更改原型，我们不必设置调用堆栈和消息

在Mohsen的回答中指出，在ES6中可以使用类来扩展错误。这要容易得多，而且它们的行为与本机错误更一致……但不幸的是，如果你需要支持前es6版本的浏览器，在浏览器中使用它并不是一件简单的事情。下面是关于如何实施的一些注意事项，但与此同时，我建议一个相对简单的方法，它包含了其他答案中的一些最好的建议:

function CustomError(message) {
    //This is for future compatibility with the ES6 version, which
    //would display a similar message if invoked without the
    //`new` operator.
    if (!(this instanceof CustomError)) {
        throw new TypeError("Constructor 'CustomError' cannot be invoked without 'new'");
    }
    this.message = message;

    //Stack trace in V8
    if (Error.captureStackTrace) {
       Error.captureStackTrace(this, CustomError);
    }
    else this.stack = (new Error).stack;
}
CustomError.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype);
CustomError.prototype.name = 'CustomError';

在ES6中，这很简单:

class CustomError extends Error {}

...and you can detect support for ES6 classes with try {eval('class X{}'), but you'll get a syntax error if you attempt to include the ES6 version in a script that's loaded by older browsers. So the only way to support all browsers would be to load a separate script dynamically (e.g. via AJAX or eval()) for browsers that support ES6. A further complication is that eval() isn't supported in all environments (due to Content Security Policies), which may or may not be a consideration for your project.

所以现在，对于需要支持非es6浏览器的代码来说，无论是上述第一种方法，还是直接使用Error而不尝试扩展它，似乎都是最好的方法。

There is one other approach that some people might want to consider, which is to use Object.setPrototypeOf() where available to create an error object that's an instance of your custom error type but which looks and behaves more like a native error in the console (thanks to Ben's answer for the recommendation). Here's my take on that approach: https://gist.github.com/mbrowne/fe45db61cea7858d11be933a998926a8. But given that one day we'll be able to just use ES6, personally I'm not sure the complexity of that approach is worth it.