We Keep Coding

Console integration: get number of errors/warnings thrown?

So if you open up the inspector, you get this (if you're unlucky):
I'm building a tiny JS component which displays debugging information - is there any way to read the number of encountered errors and warnings so far?
A hacky solution I could come up with involves a bit of trickery by replacing the console.(error|log|warn) functions with my own, but I'm yet to test if it works for all cases (e.g. outside of code I own).
Is there a better way to do this?

As noted in this answer, it's generally not a good idea to change the behavior of native objects/methods. However, the following code should get you what you need in a fairly innocuous manner:
// Add this IIFE to your codebase:
(() => {
// Get all of the property names of the console:
const methodsToTrack = Object.keys(window.console);
// Create an object to collect total usage tallies in:
const usageRegistry = {};
for (let i = 0, j = methodsToTrack.length; i < j; i++) {
let methodName = methodsToTrack[i];
// If the property is not a method, don't touch it:
if(typeof window.console[methodName] !== 'function') {
continue;
}
// Cache the original console method here:
let consoleMethod = window.console[methodName];
// Overwrite console's method to increment the counter:
window.console[methodName] = function () {
// Defining registry properties here, so the registry only contains values for methods that were accessed:
usageRegistry[methodName] = usageRegistry[methodName] || 0;
// Execute the original method's behavior, capturing the returned value (if any) in a var, to return it at the end:
const returnedValue = consoleMethod(...arguments);
// Increment the usage registry for the executed method:
usageRegistry[methodName]++;
// Return the value the console's method would have returned, so the new method has the same signature as the old.
return returnedValue;
};
}
// Define a funciton to output the totals to a console log, then clean up after itself:
window.showConsoleTallies = function () {
window.console.log(usageRegistry);
usageRegistry['log']--;
}
})();
// Examples:
showConsoleTallies();
console.log('log 1');
console.error('error 1');
console.log('log 2');
console.warn('warn 1');
console.error('error 2');
console.log('log 3');
showConsoleTallies();
PS: That's the ECMA6 version, but feel free to run it through Babel if you'd like it to be compiled for use in older browsers.

Algorithmically identifying pure functions in javascript

Is it possible to determine whether or not a javascript function is "pure", using javascript?
A function is said to be pure when it behaves in a predictable way, in the sense that for each x, the function will always return the same associated y value (i.e a single-valued map).
For example, a pure function:
function pure(x) {
return x * x;
}
And impure:
var x = 0;
function impure(y) {
x = x + y;
return x++;
}
While it's easy to tell here that impure(0) !== impure(0), it isn't as apparent with a function such as:
function weird(x) {
if (x === "specificThing") {
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
or
var count = 0;
function surprise(x) {
count++;
if (count === 10e10 && x === 0) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
Another way of asking this is, is it possible to determine whether or not a javascript function is "impure", using javascript?
Theoretically it may be possible or impossible, but practically what steps can one take to start to determine this, maybe given a set of constraints or assumptions?
Another definition of purity includes the caveat that non-local variables may not be changed, but I'd like to consider that a separate problem. In this case we are considering functions that map consistent inputs to consistent outputs.

JavaScript is Turing complete, so it's just as able to parse and analyse JavaScript as any other programming language. So, the question is really: "can JavaScript functions be automatically tested for "purity", at all?"
Short answer
Only sometimes.
Long answer
For some functions, for which the AST is straight forward and all the symbols are contained, definitely. Something like function(X) { return X * X; } is provably pure (for primitive input) because the only variables used in the function body are variables that are passed in as function arguments. This function does not rely on any additional API calls, but pure arithmetics. We can most definitely show it's pure.
Things change when we allow arbitrary content, because JavaScript has no explicit types, and instead will happily type-coerce from complex to primitive data type (or even from primitive to primitive data type) when it needs to perform an operation that can't have that operation applied. Calling our above function with an object, instead of a number, performs further function calls underwater, and those functions are not guaranteed pure at all (see Andreas's answer on this, too)
The vast majority of JS functions are nothing like our simple function. For most functions, we need to prove not only that they're pure, but that all the functions they call internally are pure, too. Now we're running into the halting problem. Let's take a ridiculously simple example:
function(x) {
if (typeof window !== "undefined") {
return x * x;
}
return x * x * x;
}
Is this pure? Well, if we run this in the browser, then in the browser it's pure, since window is always defined. But in something like Node.js, it might be pure, but it might not be: we can't prove it is, nor can we prove it is not, because we cannot prove that this mysterious window variable exists when the function runs. While Node.js has no global window variable, we can trivially introduce one whenever we like, and the function's behaviour will change. Now we're suddenly faced with proving whether or not the entirety of our code will ever introduce a window variable (and that may be very creatively done, like global["win" + _abc] = true where _abc is the string "dow"). This is a lost cause.
The rabbit hole runs deep, and reading about the halting problem will make you appreciate how many difference faces the halting problem has.

Even your first function isn't pure, because in JavaScript * may invoke a ToNumber conversion, which may invoke arbitrary user code, if x happens to be an object with a user-defined toString or valueOf method, or somebody happened to monkey-patch Object.prototype.
The sad truth is that in JS almost nothing can be proved pure. The only operations that can never have side effects are ===, !==, !, &&, ||, and typeof. This is a huge problem for optimisations in compilers, btw.

sample code. limitation: can only *guess* if some code is pure = can only give a hint, but no guarantee
/* programmatically guess if some javascript code is pure or impure
npm install acorn acorn-walk
license is CC0-1.0 */
const acorn_parse = require("acorn").parse;
const acorn_walk = require("acorn-walk");
// the code to analyze
const content = `
['k1'].map(key => {
const val = data[key];
let local1;
var local2 = 2;
var local3, local4;
global1[key] = val; // find me
global2.key = val; // find me
global3.push(val); // find me
global4.pop(); // find me
global5.shift(); // find me
global6 = 'impure'; // find me
const local7 = global7[1234];
var local8 = global8.map(x => 2*x);
var local9 = global9.filter(Boolean);
const local10 = global10.pop(); // find me
local1 = 'ok';
local2.push('ok');
return [key, val];
})
`;
// method names for our educated guess
const write_method_set = new Set(['push', 'pop', 'shift']);
const read_method_set = new Set(['map', 'filter', 'reduce', 'forEach']);
const is_write_method = method_name => write_method_set.has(method_name);
const is_read_method = method_name => read_method_set.has(method_name);
const is_local = name => (name != undefined && local_var_set.has(name));
const get_src = node => content.substring(node.start, node.end);
function test_assign(node, left_name) {
if (left_name == undefined) {
console.log(`TODO implement: detect write access in:`);
console.dir(node);
return;
}
if (!is_local(left_name)) console.log(`impure write access to global ${left_name}: ${get_src(node)}`);
else console.log(`pure? write access to local ${left_name}: ${get_src(node)}`);
}
function test_call(node, left_name, method_name) {
if (left_name == undefined) {
console.log(`TODO implement: detect write access in:`)
console.dir(node);
return;
}
if (is_read_method(method_name)) return console.log(`pure? access to ${left_name}: ${get_src(node)}`);
if (!is_local(left_name)) {
if (is_write_method(method_name)) console.log(`impure write access to global ${left_name}: ${get_src(node)}`);
else console.log(`pure? access to global ${left_name}: ${get_src(node)}`);
}
else console.log(`pure? write access to local ${left_name}: ${get_src(node)}`)
}
const local_var_set = new Set();
// throws on syntax error
let ast = acorn_parse(content, { ecmaVersion: 2020, sourceType: "module" });
acorn_walk.full(ast, (node, state, type) => {
if (node.type == 'VariableDeclaration') {
node.declarations.forEach(d => {
local_var_set.add(d.id.name);
console.log(`declare local: ${d.id.name}`);
});
}
else if (node.type == 'AssignmentExpression') {
const left_name =
node.left.type == 'Identifier' ? node.left.name :
node.left.type == 'MemberExpression' ? node.left.object.name :
undefined
;
test_assign(node, left_name);
}
else if (node.type == 'CallExpression') {
if (node.callee.object.type == 'ArrayExpression') return; // simply ignore
const left_name =
node.callee.type == 'MemberExpression' ? node.callee.object.name :
undefined
;
const method_name =
node.callee.type == 'MemberExpression' ? node.callee.property.name :
undefined
;
test_call(node, left_name, method_name);
}
//else console.dir(node);
});
sample output
$ node test.js | grep impure
impure write access to global global1: global1[key] = val
impure write access to global global2: global2.key = val
impure write access to global global3: global3.push(val)
impure write access to global global4: global4.pop()
impure write access to global global5: global5.shift()
impure write access to global global6: global6 = 'impure'
impure write access to global global10: global10.pop()

JavaScript - Using object prototypes to extend the usage of a method?

I am very new to JavaScript, and when working with my object's prototype I try to call the current object to extend a method but it is not working. So I google'd my problem but didn't really get anywhere as it is practically impossible to phrase. However, I found the this keyword which I thought should work but didn't. Here's what I have:
(function( window, document, undefined ) {
var myObj = function ( ) { }; // not a noop
var ua = function() { return navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase(); }
function noop() { }; // empty noop function
myObj.prototype = {
constructor: myObj,
renderizr: {
presto: ua().match(/(opera|presto)/i),
trident: ua().match(/trident/i), // don't parse "msie" as opera uses this sometimes
webkit: ua().match(/(chrome|safari|webkit)/i),
gecko: ua().match(/(firefox|gecko)/i), // don't parse "netscape" as a lot of strings use this
val: '' // keep empty for now
}
};
// renderizr.val extension
// use this so the user can print the value of
// the rendering engine instead of using multiple
// conditional statements.
if(this.renderizr.presto) { this.renderizr.val = "Presto" }
else if(this.renderizr.trident) { this.renderizr.val = "Trident") }
else if(this.renderizr.webkit) { this.renderizr.val = "Webkit") }
else if(this.renderizr.gecko) { this.renderizr.val = "Gecko") }
window.myObj = new myObj();
}( window, document ));
This way, you can do alert(myObj.renderizr.val); instead of doing monotonous conditional statements.
I don't want to do generic browser name detection because you're only supposed to test for the features which you need, not the browser. However, some rendering engines have different habits for rendering web pages, so I do want to include engine detection in my script. (However, I don't suggest using this, like I said, I just want to get to know javascript and how it works, and it's not working!).
So my question is, what am I doing wrong here and how can I fix it? Why doesn't the this keyword work?

You are using this in a context where you are not in the instance of a myObj object. this will be the global scope (ie. window).
Also, all your code is running immediately, you are not defining any functions in your prototype.

I believe you want those checks inside your constructor:
var myObj = function () {
// renderizr.val extension
// use this so the user can print the value of
// the rendering engine instead of using multiple
// conditional statements.
if(this.renderizr.presto) { this.renderizr.val = "Presto" }
else if(this.renderizr.trident) { this.renderizr.val = "Trident" }
else if(this.renderizr.webkit) { this.renderizr.val = "Webkit" }
else if(this.renderizr.gecko) { this.renderizr.val = "Gecko" }
};
Also, you have some extra ) inside your else if statements, causing syntax errors. Check a working version here: http://jsfiddle.net/SnKSB/.

Does JavaScript have the interface type (such as Java's 'interface')?

I'm learning how to make OOP with JavaScript. Does it have the interface concept (such as Java's interface)?
So I would be able to create a listener...

There's no notion of "this class must have these functions" (that is, no interfaces per se), because:
JavaScript inheritance is based on objects, not classes. That's not a big deal until you realize:
JavaScript is an extremely dynamically typed language -- you can create an object with the proper methods, which would make it conform to the interface, and then undefine all the stuff that made it conform. It'd be so easy to subvert the type system -- even accidentally! -- that it wouldn't be worth it to try and make a type system in the first place.
Instead, JavaScript uses what's called duck typing. (If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, as far as JS cares, it's a duck.) If your object has quack(), walk(), and fly() methods, code can use it wherever it expects an object that can walk, quack, and fly, without requiring the implementation of some "Duckable" interface. The interface is exactly the set of functions that the code uses (and the return values from those functions), and with duck typing, you get that for free.
Now, that's not to say your code won't fail halfway through, if you try to call some_dog.quack(); you'll get a TypeError. Frankly, if you're telling dogs to quack, you have slightly bigger problems; duck typing works best when you keep all your ducks in a row, so to speak, and aren't letting dogs and ducks mingle together unless you're treating them as generic animals. In other words, even though the interface is fluid, it's still there; it's often an error to pass a dog to code that expects it to quack and fly in the first place.
But if you're sure you're doing the right thing, you can work around the quacking-dog problem by testing for the existence of a particular method before trying to use it. Something like
if (typeof(someObject.quack) == "function")
{
// This thing can quack
}
So you can check for all the methods you can use before you use them. The syntax is kind of ugly, though. There's a slightly prettier way:
Object.prototype.can = function(methodName)
{
return ((typeof this[methodName]) == "function");
};
if (someObject.can("quack"))
{
someObject.quack();
}
This is standard JavaScript, so it should work in any JS interpreter worth using. It has the added benefit of reading like English.
For modern browsers (that is, pretty much any browser other than IE 6-8), there's even a way to keep the property from showing up in for...in:
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'can', {
enumerable: false,
value: function(method) {
return (typeof this[method] === 'function');
}
}
The problem is that IE7 objects don't have .defineProperty at all, and in IE8, it allegedly only works on host objects (that is, DOM elements and such). If compatibility is an issue, you can't use .defineProperty. (I won't even mention IE6, because it's rather irrelevant anymore outside of China.)
Another issue is that some coding styles like to assume that everyone writes bad code, and prohibit modifying Object.prototype in case someone wants to blindly use for...in. If you care about that, or are using (IMO broken) code that does, try a slightly different version:
function can(obj, methodName)
{
return ((typeof obj[methodName]) == "function");
}
if (can(someObject, "quack"))
{
someObject.quack();
}

Pick up a copy of 'JavaScript design patterns' by Dustin Diaz. There's a few chapters dedicated to implementing JavaScript interfaces through Duck Typing. It's a nice read as well. But no, there's no language native implementation of an interface, you have to Duck Type.
// example duck typing method
var hasMethods = function(obj /*, method list as strings */){
var i = 1, methodName;
while((methodName = arguments[i++])){
if(typeof obj[methodName] != 'function') {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
// in your code
if(hasMethods(obj, 'quak', 'flapWings','waggle')) {
// IT'S A DUCK, do your duck thang
}

JavaScript (ECMAScript edition 3) has an implements reserved word saved up for future use. I think this is intended exactly for this purpose, however, in a rush to get the specification out the door they didn't have time to define what to do with it, so, at the present time, browsers don't do anything besides let it sit there and occasionally complain if you try to use it for something.
It is possible and indeed easy enough to create your own Object.implement(Interface) method with logic that baulks whenever a particular set of properties/functions are not implemented in a given object.
I wrote an article on object-orientation where use my own notation as follows:
// Create a 'Dog' class that inherits from 'Animal'
// and implements the 'Mammal' interface
var Dog = Object.extend(Animal, {
constructor: function(name) {
Dog.superClass.call(this, name);
},
bark: function() {
alert('woof');
}
}).implement(Mammal);
There are many ways to skin this particular cat, but this is the logic I used for my own Interface implementation. I find I prefer this approach, and it is easy to read and use (as you can see above). It does mean adding an 'implement' method to Function.prototype which some people may have a problem with, but I find it works beautifully.
Function.prototype.implement = function() {
// Loop through each interface passed in and then check
// that its members are implemented in the context object (this).
for(var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
// .. Check member's logic ..
}
// Remember to return the class being tested
return this;
}

JavaScript Interfaces:
Though JavaScript does not have the interface type, it is often times needed. For reasons relating to JavaScript's dynamic nature and use of Prototypical-Inheritance, it is difficult to ensure consistent interfaces across classes -- however, it is possible to do so; and frequently emulated.
At this point, there are handfuls of particular ways to emulate Interfaces in JavaScript; variance on approaches usually satisfies some needs, while others are left unaddressed. Often times, the most robust approach is overly cumbersome and stymies the implementor (developer).
Here is an approach to Interfaces / Abstract Classes that is not very cumbersome, is explicative, keeps implementations inside of Abstractions to a minimum, and leaves enough room for dynamic or custom methodologies:
function resolvePrecept(interfaceName) {
var interfaceName = interfaceName;
return function curry(value) {
/* throw new Error(interfaceName + ' requires an implementation for ...'); */
console.warn('%s requires an implementation for ...', interfaceName);
return value;
};
}
var iAbstractClass = function AbstractClass() {
var defaultTo = resolvePrecept('iAbstractClass');
this.datum1 = this.datum1 || defaultTo(new Number());
this.datum2 = this.datum2 || defaultTo(new String());
this.method1 = this.method1 || defaultTo(new Function('return new Boolean();'));
this.method2 = this.method2 || defaultTo(new Function('return new Object();'));
};
var ConcreteImplementation = function ConcreteImplementation() {
this.datum1 = 1;
this.datum2 = 'str';
this.method1 = function method1() {
return true;
};
this.method2 = function method2() {
return {};
};
//Applies Interface (Implement iAbstractClass Interface)
iAbstractClass.apply(this); // .call / .apply after precept definitions
};
Participants
Precept Resolver
The resolvePrecept function is a utility & helper function to use inside of your Abstract Class. Its job is to allow for customized implementation-handling of encapsulated Precepts (data & behavior). It can throw errors or warn -- AND -- assign a default value to the Implementor class.
iAbstractClass
The iAbstractClass defines the interface to be used. Its approach entails a tacit agreement with its Implementor class. This interface assigns each precept to the same exact precept namespace -- OR -- to whatever the Precept Resolver function returns. However, the tacit agreement resolves to a context -- a provision of Implementor.
Implementor
The Implementor simply 'agrees' with an Interface (iAbstractClass in this case) and applies it by the use of Constructor-Hijacking: iAbstractClass.apply(this). By defining the data & behavior above, and then hijacking the Interface's constructor -- passing Implementor's context to the Interface constructor -- we can ensure that Implementor's overrides will be added, and that Interface will explicate warnings and default values.
This is a very non-cumbersome approach which has served my team & I very well for the course of time and different projects. However, it does have some caveats & drawbacks.
Drawbacks
Though this helps implement consistency throughout your software to a significant degree, it does not implement true interfaces -- but emulates them. Though definitions, defaults, and warnings or errors are explicated, the explication of use is enforced & asserted by the developer (as with much of JavaScript development).
This is seemingly the best approach to "Interfaces in JavaScript", however, I would love to see the following resolved:
Assertions of return types
Assertions of signatures
Freeze objects from delete actions
Assertions of anything else prevalent or needed in the specificity of the JavaScript community
That said, I hope this helps you as much as it has my team and I.

Hope, that anyone who's still looking for an answer finds it helpful.
You can try out using a Proxy (It's standard since ECMAScript 2015): https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Proxy
latLngLiteral = new Proxy({},{
set: function(obj, prop, val) {
//only these two properties can be set
if(['lng','lat'].indexOf(prop) == -1) {
throw new ReferenceError('Key must be "lat" or "lng"!');
}
//the dec format only accepts numbers
if(typeof val !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError('Value must be numeric');
}
//latitude is in range between 0 and 90
if(prop == 'lat' && !(0 < val && val < 90)) {
throw new RangeError('Position is out of range!');
}
//longitude is in range between 0 and 180
else if(prop == 'lng' && !(0 < val && val < 180)) {
throw new RangeError('Position is out of range!');
}
obj[prop] = val;
return true;
}
});
Then you can easily say:
myMap = {}
myMap.position = latLngLiteral;
If you want to check via instanceof (asked by #Kamaffeather), you can wrap it in an object like so:
class LatLngLiteral {
constructor(props)
{
this.proxy = new Proxy(this, {
set: function(obj, prop, val) {
//only these two properties can be set
if(['lng','lat'].indexOf(prop) == -1) {
throw new ReferenceError('Key must be "lat" or "lng"!');
}
//the dec format only accepts numbers
if(typeof val !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError('Value must be numeric');
}
//latitude is in range between 0 and 90
if(prop == 'lat' && !(0 < val && val < 90)) {
throw new RangeError('Position is out of range!');
}
//longitude is in range between 0 and 180
else if(prop == 'lng' && !(0 < val && val < 180)) {
throw new RangeError('Position is out of range!');
}
obj[prop] = val;
return true;
}
})
return this.proxy
}
}
This can be done without using Proxy but instead the classes getters and setters:
class LatLngLiteral {
#latitude;
#longitude;
get lat()
{
return this.#latitude;
}
get lng()
{
return this.#longitude;
}
set lat(val)
{
//the dec format only accepts numbers
if(typeof val !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError('Value must be numeric');
}
//latitude is in range between 0 and 90
if(!(0 < val && val < 90)) {
throw new RangeError('Position is out of range!');
}
this.#latitude = val
}
set lng(val)
{
//the dec format only accepts numbers
if(typeof val !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError('Value must be numeric');
}
//longitude is in range between 0 and 180
if(!(0 < val && val < 180)) {
throw new RangeError('Position is out of range!');
}
this.#longitude = val
}
}

abstract interface like this
const MyInterface = {
serialize: () => {throw "must implement serialize for MyInterface types"},
print: () => console.log(this.serialize())
}
create an instance:
function MyType() {
this.serialize = () => "serialized "
}
MyType.prototype = MyInterface
and use it
let x = new MyType()
x.print()

You need interfaces in Java since it is statically typed and the contract between classes should be known during compilation. In JavaScript it is different. JavaScript is dynamically typed; it means that when you get the object you can just check if it has a specific method and call it.

When you want to use a transcompiler, then you could give TypeScript a try. It supports draft ECMA features (in the proposal, interfaces are called "protocols") similar to what languages like coffeescript or babel do.
In TypeScript your interface can look like:
interface IMyInterface {
id: number; // TypeScript types are lowercase
name: string;
callback: (key: string; value: any; array: string[]) => void;
type: "test" | "notATest"; // so called "union type"
}
What you can't do:
Define RegExp patterns for type value
Define validation like string length
Number ranges
etc.

there is no native interfaces in JavaScript,
there are several ways to simulate an interface. i have written a package that does it
you can see the implantation here

Try this: Describe the interface as a class and use #implements JSDoc to show that a given class implements the interface defined. You'll see red squiggly lines on the class name if its not implementing some properties. I tested with VSCode.
// #ts-check
// describe interface using a class
class PlainInterface {
size = 4;
describe() {}
show(){ }
}
/**
* #implements PlainInterface
*/
class ConcretePlain {
size = 4;
describe() {
console.log('I am described')
}
show(){
console.log('I am shown')
}
}
const conc = new ConcretePlain();
conc.describe();

Javascript does not have interfaces. But it can be duck-typed, an example can be found here:
http://reinsbrain.blogspot.com/2008/10/interface-in-javascript.html

This is an old question, nevertheless this topic never ceases to bug me.
As many of the answers here and across the web focus on "enforcing" the interface, I'd like to suggest an alternative view:
I feel the lack of interfaces the most when I'm using multiple classes that behave similarly (i.e. implement an interface).
For example, I have an Email Generator that expects to receive Email Sections Factories, that "know" how to generate the sections' content and HTML. Hence, they all need to have some sort of getContent(id) and getHtml(content) methods.
The closest pattern to interfaces (albeit it's still a workaround) I could think of is using a class that'll get 2 arguments, which will define the 2 interface methods.
The main challenge with this pattern is that the methods either have to be static, or to get as argument the instance itself, in order to access its properties. However there are cases in which I find this trade-off worth the hassle.
class Filterable {
constructor(data, { filter, toString }) {
this.data = data;
this.filter = filter;
this.toString = toString;
// You can also enforce here an Iterable interface, for example,
// which feels much more natural than having an external check
}
}
const evenNumbersList = new Filterable(
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], {
filter: (lst) => {
const evenElements = lst.data.filter(x => x % 2 === 0);
lst.data = evenElements;
},
toString: lst => `< ${lst.data.toString()} >`,
}
);
console.log('The whole list: ', evenNumbersList.toString(evenNumbersList));
evenNumbersList.filter(evenNumbersList);
console.log('The filtered list: ', evenNumbersList.toString(evenNumbersList));

With an interface you can implement a way of polymorphism. Javascript does NOT need the interface type to handle this and other interface stuff. Why? Javascript is a dynamically typed language. Take as example an array of classes that have the same methods:
Circle()
Square()
Triangle()
If you want to know how polymorphism works the Book MFC of David Kruglinsky is great (written for C++)
Implement in those classes the method draw() push the instances of those classes in the array and call the draw() methods in a loop that iterates the array. That's completely valid. You could say you implemented implicitly an abstract class. Its not there in reality but in your mind you did it and Javascript has no problem with it. The difference with an real interface is that you HAVE to implement all the interface methods and that's in this case not needed.
An interface is a contract. You will have to implement all the methods. Only by making it statically you have to do that.
Its questionable to change a language like Javascript from dynamic to static. Its not mend to be static. Experienced developers have no problems with the dynamic nature of Javascript.
So the reason to use Typescript are not clear to me. If you use NodeJS together with Javascript you can build extremely efficient and cost effective enterprise websites. The Javascript/NodeJS/MongoDB combination are already great winners.

I know this is an old one, but I've recently found myself needing more and more to have a handy API for checking objects against interfaces. So I wrote this: https://github.com/tomhicks/methodical
It's also available via NPM: npm install methodical
It basically does everything suggested above, with some options for being a bit more strict, and all without having to do loads of if (typeof x.method === 'function') boilerplate.
Hopefully someone finds it useful.

This is old but I implemented interfaces to use on ES6 without transpiller.
https://github.com/jkutianski/ES6-Interfaces

It bugged me too to find a solution to mimic interfaces with the lower impacts possible.
One solution could be to make a tool :
/**
#parameter {Array|object} required : method name list or members types by their name
#constructor
*/
let Interface=function(required){
this.obj=0;
if(required instanceof Array){
this.obj={};
required.forEach(r=>this.obj[r]='function');
}else if(typeof(required)==='object'){
this.obj=required;
}else {
throw('Interface invalid parameter required = '+required);
}
};
/** check constructor instance
#parameter {object} scope : instance to check.
#parameter {boolean} [strict] : if true -> throw an error if errors ar found.
#constructor
*/
Interface.prototype.check=function(scope,strict){
let err=[],type,res={};
for(let k in this.obj){
type=typeof(scope[k]);
if(type!==this.obj[k]){
err.push({
key:k,
type:this.obj[k],
inputType:type,
msg:type==='undefined'?'missing element':'bad element type "'+type+'"'
});
}
}
res.success=!err.length;
if(err.length){
res.msg='Class bad structure :';
res.errors=err;
if(strict){
let stk = new Error().stack.split('\n');
stk.shift();
throw(['',res.msg,
res.errors.map(e=>'- {'+e.type+'} '+e.key+' : '+e.msg).join('\n'),
'','at :\n\t'+stk.join('\n\t')
].join('\n'));
}
}
return res;
};
Exemple of use :
// create interface tool
let dataInterface=new Interface(['toData','fromData']);
// abstract constructor
let AbstractData=function(){
dataInterface.check(this,1);// check extended element
};
// extended constructor
let DataXY=function(){
AbstractData.apply(this,[]);
this.xy=[0,0];
};
DataXY.prototype.toData=function(){
return [this.xy[0],this.xy[1]];
};
// should throw an error because 'fromData' is missing
let dx=new DataXY();
With classes
class AbstractData{
constructor(){
dataInterface.check(this,1);
}
}
class DataXY extends AbstractData{
constructor(){
super();
this.xy=[0,0];
}
toData(){
return [this.xy[0],this.xy[1]];
}
}
It's still a bit performance consumming and require dependancy to the Interface class, but can be of use for debug or open api.

Js doesn't have interfaces but typescript does!

While there isn't a interface in javaScript as there is in Java you could mimic the behaviour a bit with the code under this message. because an interface is basicly an enforced contract you could build it yourself.
The code below exists out of 3 classes an interface, parent and child class.
The Interface has the methods to check if the methods and properties exist required exist.
The Parent is used to enforce the required methods and properties in the child using the Interface class.
The Child is the class that the parents rules are enforced on.
After you set it up correctly you will see an error in the console if a method or property is missing in the child and nothing if the child implements the contract correctly.
class Interface {
checkRequiredMethods(methodNames) {
setTimeout( () => {
const loopLength = methodNames.length;
let i = 0
for (i; i<loopLength; i++) {
if (typeof this[methodNames[i]] === "undefined") {
this.throwMissingMethod(methodNames[i]);
}
else if (typeof this[methodNames[i]] !== "function") {
this.throwNotAMethod(methodNames[i]);
}
}
}, 0);
}
checkRequiredProperties(propNames) {
setTimeout( () => {
const loopLength = propNames.length;
let i = 0
for (i; i<loopLength; i++) {
if (typeof this[propNames[i]] === "undefined") {
this.throwMissingProperty(propNames[i]);
}
else if (typeof this[propNames[i]] === "function") {
this.throwPropertyIsMethod(propNames[i]);
}
}
}, 0);
}
throwMissingMethod(methodName) {
throw new Error(`error method ${methodName} is undefined`);
}
throwNotAMethod(methodName) {
throw new Error(`error method ${methodName} is not a method`);
}
throwMissingProperty(propName) {
throw new Error(`error property ${propName} is not defined`);
}
throwPropertyIsMethod(propName) {
throw new Error(`error property ${propName} is a method`);
}
}
class Parent extends Interface {
constructor() {
super()
this.checkRequiredProperties([
"p1",
"p2",
"p3",
"p4",
"p5"
]);
this.checkRequiredMethods([
"m1",
"m2",
"m3",
"m4"
]);
}
}
class Child extends Parent {
p1 = 0;
p2 = "";
p3 = false;
p4 = [];
p5 = {};
constructor() {
super();
}
m1() {}
m2() {}
m3() {}
m4() {}
}
new Child()

No, but it has mixins.
You can use Abstract sub-classss or mixins as an alternative https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Classes#mix-ins

JavaScript getter for all properties

Long story short: I'm in a situation where I'd like a PHP-style getter, but in JavaScript.
My JavaScript is running in Firefox only, so Mozilla specific JS is OK by me.
The only way I can find to make a JS getter requires specifying its name, but I'd like to define a getter for all possible names. I'm not sure if this is possible, but I'd very much like to know.

Proxy can do it! I'm so happy this exists!! An answer is given here: Is there a javascript equivalent of python's __getattr__ method? . To rephrase in my own words:
var x = new Proxy({}, {
get(target, name) {
return "Its hilarious you think I have " + name
}
})
console.log(x.hair) // logs: "Its hilarious you think I have hair"
Proxy for the win! Check out the MDN docs: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Proxy
Works in chrome, firefox, and node.js. Downsides: doesn't work in IE - freakin IE. Soon.

You can combine proxy and class to have a nice looking code like php:
class Magic {
constructor () {
return new Proxy(this, this);
}
get (target, prop) {
return this[prop] || 'MAGIC';
}
}
this binds to the handler, so you can use this instead of target.
Note: unlike PHP, proxy handles all prop access.
let magic = new Magic();
magic.foo = 'NOT MAGIC';
console.log(magic.foo); // NOT MAGIC
console.log(magic.bar); // MAGIC
You can check which browsers support proxy http://caniuse.com/#feat=proxy.

The closest you can find is __noSuchMethod__ (__noSuchMethod__ is deprecated), which is JavaScript's equivalent of PHP's __call().
Unfortunately, there's no equivalent of __get/__set, which is a shame, because with them we could have implemented __noSuchMethod__, but I don't yet see a way to implement properties (as in C#) using __noSuchMethod__.
var foo = {
__noSuchMethod__ : function(id, args) {
alert(id);
alert(args);
}
};
foo.bar(1, 2);

Javascript 1.5 does have getter/setter syntactic sugar. It's explained very well by John Resig here
It's not generic enough for web use, but certainly Firefox has them (also Rhino, if you ever want to use it on the server side).

If you really need an implementation that works, you could "cheat" your way arround by testing the second parameter against undefined, this also means you could use get to actually set parameter.
var foo = {
args: {},
__noSuchMethod__ : function(id, args) {
if(args === undefined) {
return this.args[id] === undefined ? this[id] : this.args[id]
}
if(this[id] === undefined) {
this.args[id] = args;
} else {
this[id] = args;
}
}
};

If you're looking for something like PHP's __get() function, I don't think Javascript provides any such construct.
The best I can think of doing is looping through the object's non-function members and then creating a corresponding "getXYZ()" function for each.
In dodgy pseudo-ish code:
for (o in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(o)) {
this['get_' + o] = function() {
// return this.o -- but you'll need to create a closure to
// keep the correct reference to "o"
};
}
}

I ended up using a nickfs' answer to construct my own solution. My solution will automatically create get_{propname} and set_{propname} functions for all properties. It does check if the function already exists before adding them. This allows you to override the default get or set method with our own implementation without the risk of it getting overwritten.
for (o in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(o)) {
var creategetter = (typeof this['get_' + o] !== 'function');
var createsetter = (typeof this['set_' + o] !== 'function');
(function () {
var propname = o;
if (creategetter) {
self['get_' + propname] = function () {
return self[propname];
};
}
if (createsetter) {
self['set_' + propname] = function (val) {
self[propname] = val;
};
}
})();
}
}

This is not exactly an answer to the original question, however this and this questions are closed and redirect here, so here I am. I hope I can help some other JS newbie that lands here as I did.
Coming from Python, what I was looking for was an equivalent of obj.__getattr__(key)and obj.__hasattr__(key) methods. What I ended up using is:
obj[key] for getattr and obj.hasOwnProperty(key) for hasattr (doc).

It is possible to get a similar result simply by wrapping the object in a getter function:
const getProp = (key) => {
const dictionary = {
firstName: 'John',
lastName: 'Doe',
age: 42,
DEFAULT: 'there is no prop like this'
}
return (typeof dictionary[key] === 'undefined' ? dictionary.DEFAULT : dictionary[key]);
}
console.log(getProp('age')) // 42
console.log(getProp('Hello World')) // 'there is no prop like this'