What is the best way to convert OOP classes to FP functions? - javascript

I have found a GitHub repository full of JavaScript algorithms and data types. The thing is, everything is written in OOP. I myself, prefer a more FP approach using small, reusable functions. What are some best practices to convert classes to smaller consumable functions?
For now, I can come up with the following working example. Is this the way to go?
OOP:
class LinkedListNode {
constructor(value, next = null) {
this.value = value;
this.next = next;
}
toString(callback) {
return callback ? callback(this.value) : `${this.value}`;
}
}
FP:
function toString(value, callback) {
return callback ? callback(value) : `${value}`;
}
function Node(value, next = null) {
return {
value,
next,
toString(callback) {
return toString(value, callback);
}
};
}

In your second example you still have a method attached to each instance, which is not ideal as soon as you want to reuse this method on a compatible interface. Also it does not play well with many FP js libraries.
To make it clear from the outside that it is not a constructor function, make it start lower case and add a prefix like create for example.
Make functions as pure as possible and do not mix code composition logic (compose, curry) with the business logic. (I talk about callback having nothing to do inside toString)
I am adding export to clearly show that at least 2 functions need to be exported.
export { nodeToString, createNode };
function nodeToString(node) {
return `${node.value}`;
}
function createNode(value, next = null) {
return {
value,
next
};
}
It would be used like this
import { nodeToString, createNode } from "./x.js";
const node = createNode(`myvalue`);
const string = nodeToString(node);

Related

Does the Factory Pattern in js violate the Open-Close principle?

since JS does not support abstract classes or inheritance, every time we want to add a new type to be created when using factory pattern, we will have to modify the code which mean we violate the open-close principle. for example, in the snapshot bellow - if we want to add a new employee type like Marketing, we will have to update the switch statement which is violation of the open-close principle. Is there any workaround to use the factory pattern without violation open-close principle?
function Accountant(){
console.log('I am accountant');
}
function Developer(){
console.log('I am developer');
}
function Sales(){
console.log('I am sales');
}
function CreateEmployee(employee){
switch(employee){
case('accountant'): return new Accountant();
case('developer'): return new Developer()
case('sales'): return new Sales();
}
}
if we want to add a new employee type, we will have to update the switch statement which is violation of the open-close principle.
No, it doesn't. The OCP is not about forbidding to update code. If we want to implement a new feature, we of course need to touch the code of the program. The OCP is about designing your interfaces so that your program can be easily extended without changing code all over the place - ideally you only have to provide the new code, and change the configuration of the program to make use of it - or if this is not configurable, change only the high-level building blocks.
I would argue that the factory pattern even facilitates application of the OCP - don't think about changes to the factory function, think about the modules that use it. Instead of changing all the code in all the modules that instantiates employee objects, all you need to do is to supply a different factory to them.
A step in the right direction is to create an employeeType object that holds the constructors:
const employeeType = {
Accountant,
Developer,
Salesperson
};
// console.log(new (employeeType["Accountant"])());
// Abstract away the hard-coded type above; the below randomization is strictly for demo purpose
const employeeTypeKeys = Object.keys(employeeType);
const employeeTypeIndex = Math.floor(employeeTypeKeys.length * Math.random());
console.log(new (employeeType[employeeTypeKeys[employeeTypeIndex]])());
function Accountant(){
console.log('I am an accountant');
}
function Developer(){
console.log('I am a developer');
}
function Salesperson(){
console.log('I am a salesperson');
}
I would argue the pattern isn't exactly something I'd like to extend but it's possible.
Say you have access to the CreateEmployee function alone and you'd want to extend it so you can also add Engineers.
import CreateEmployee from "./employee.js";
function Engineer(){
console.log("I'm an Engineer");
}
function CreateEmployeeAndEngineer(employeeType){
if(employeeType === 'Engineer') return new Engineer();
else {
return CreateEmployee(employeeType);
}
}
Simple (ehh... not really) function composition.
However, there's very little value for it in Javascript since it's untyped. Then of course functions, and therefore constructors, are first-class citizens and can be easily passed down to the new operator.
since JS does not support abstract classes or inheritance
Javascript does support inheritance through it's concept of prototype chain.
You could implement the Factory method pattern if you'd want.
If you want new instances to be created on the fly, you should use Object literals. Review the following design for an idea on how you may, or may not, want to go about this:
function ucFirst(string){
const s = string.split('');
return s.shift().toUpperCase()+s.join('');
}
function InstanceController(){
this.instances = [];
this.add = (name, obj)=>{
this.instances.push({name:name, obj:obj});
return this;
}
this.get = name=>{
for(let o of this.instances){
if(o.name === name){
return o.obj;
}
}
return false;
}
this.remove = name=>{
for(let i=0,a=this.instances,l=a.length; i<l; i++){
if(a[i].name === name){
a.splice(i, 1);
break;
}
}
return this;
}
}
const ic = new InstanceController;
const data1 = {
data:'could be from database',
more:'sure there can be more data',
numberTest: 2
}
const data2 = {test:'just a test'};
ic.add('developer', data1).add('accountant', {testing:'see'});
let dev = ic.get('developer'), aco = ic.get('accountant');
if(dev)console.log(dev);
if(aco)console.log(aco);
console.log(ic.get('nope'));
ic.remove('accountant'); aco = ic.get('accountant');
console.log(aco);

How interface comes in and decouples two tightly coupled methods?

I have this following codes, to help me explain what I have trouble with the decoupling concept.
for example;
async getSomething(id: number): Promise<boolean> {
if(id === "111") {
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}
someFunc(): void {
let id="123";
if (getSomething(id)) {
console.log("do somthing special");
}
else {
console.log("sleep");
}
}
from this answer on other decoupling question
We use interface to decouple two methods, but I have trouble picturing the interaction between the two methods are independent of each other.
For example;
export namespace Special {
export interface MagicDay {
isMagic: boolean;
}
}
...
async getSomething(id: number): Promise<Special.MagicDay> {
if(id === "111") {
// here what I think is different from before
// we create an object which we store our boolean
// so in some future we can the way we implement this function
// it is ok because we still have the **isMagic** that **someFunc** needs
return {isMagic: true};
}
else {
return {isMagic: false};
}
}
someFunc(): void {
let id="123";
let someDay = getSomething(id);
// different is now
// we receive an object
// so what happens in the backend we don't need to worry about it
// as long as we have the **isMagic** returns here
// but what makes this decoupling which we still need the value from
// get something
if (someDay.isMagic) {
console.log("do somthing special");
}
else {
console.log("sleep");
}
}
I make comments on what I think inside the code* above where I think I have most trouble.
I read this article about why we should use decoupling and I do understand why, but when it comes to implementation I am troubled by the idea because I keep come to think how do decoupling work in making one independent of the others but we still need the input to make it work?
thanks in advance.
The points made in this answer don't necessarily apply to TypeScript, because TS uses structural typing. database: Database doesn't have to be an instance of Database to comply to Database type. They aren't tightly coupled already. As long as Database and IDatabase types are same, IDatabase isn't needed.
MagicDay interface doesn't decouple this piece of code. boolean type was just replaced with { isMagic: boolean } type. It doesn't make sense to decouple one method from another one if they belong to same class. It would be possible to decouple unrelated functions:
type TGetSomething = (id: number) => Promise<boolean>;
const getSomething: TGetSomething = async (id: number) => {
if(id === "111") {
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}
function async someFunc(callback: TGetSomething): Promise<void> {
let id="123";
if (await callback(id)) {
console.log("do somthing special");
}
else {
console.log("sleep");
}
}
someFunc(getSomething);
If these functions are actually methods, decoupling should likely be performed at class level. Decoupling is primarily referred as OOP principle in mentioned sources.

Unique variable names

I am using ng2-simple-timer in my ionic3 App.
Here is code from repo:
counter: number = 0;
timerId: string;
ngOnInit() {
this.timerId = this.st.subscribe('5sec', () => this.callback());
}
callback() {
this.counter++;
}
simpletimer will create timer name and tick every 'number' of seconds.
callback will return counter value (0,1,2,3,4,5,6, etc..)
what is my problem?
I want define unique uniquecounterName: number = 0; because I have more than one timer.
what will be my results:
return uniquecounterName(0,1,2,3,4,5,6, etc..)
return otheruniquecounterName(0,1,2,3,4,5,6, etc..)
in other words callback() function must return pre defined unique variable names like as this.counter
callback(var) {
var++;
}
this one will not work because I want use var in my view.
....
It doesn't seem to be possible, if you take a look at the "GitHub: ng2-simple-timer-example", directly from the docs, you'll find how the author deals with multiple timers; I won't quote all the code, you can look at it yourself, but just paste here the way callbacks are handled:
timer0callback(): void {
this.counter0++;
}
timer1callback(): void {
this.counter1++;
}
timer2callback(): void {
this.counter2++;
}
As you can see, the whole process (new, subscribe, del, unsubscribe) is done for each timer. So the library doesn't support your use case directly.
What you could do is inline the callback function so you have access to the same variables you had when creating it:
function sub(name) {
this.timerId = this.st.subscribe(name, () => {
// still have access to the name
});
}
Of course this has to be heavily adapted to your purposes, this is as much as I could gather from your question.

Which pattern to use

I have a class - call it ThankYou that delivers these. Based on the different implementations, generic or Facebook, I need to deliver customized layout. Right now, I am building the HTML in JS and delivering the layout.
1) Sign up for email newsletters (for generic and Facebook implementation)
2) Teaser content (for generic implementation)
3) Facebook like(for Facebook ThankYou implementation)
Which design pattern do you think this is better implemented using - Factory or Mediator? I am just starting to utilize some design patterns in my code and would like to start off on the right foot.
Some notes:
a) Although the functionality might be the same, the layout might be different for generic and Facebook
If I don't use a design pattern, I could easily do this using an 'if' statement, but I am just looking for a more elegant solution.
I think that Factory more suitable in this case. You have base class (interface) called IThankYou that implements common methods and two classes extending base functionality. Factory stores mapping between type and class.
Small example code:
function IThankYou () {}
IThankYou.prototype = {
templates: { // this is common field for all instances extending this class
like: '<div class="b-like">Like</div>',
},
like: function () { throw "Unimplemented" }, // this method is not implemented in base class
commonMethod: function () { } // this is common method
};
function GenericThankYou (someParam) { this.someParam = someParam; };
GenericThankYou.prototype = new IThankYou;
GenericThankYou.prototype.like = function () {
// there you could use base class fields and methods
this.commonMethod();
};
function FacebookThankYou (someParam) { this.someParam = someParam; };
FacebookThankYou.prototype = new IThankYou;
FacebookThankYou.prototype.like = function () {
// there you could use base class templates map
};
var ThankYouFactory = {
typeMap: {
'facebook' : FacebookThankYou,
'generic' : GenericThankYou
},
getConstructor: function (type) {
return this.typeMap[type];
}
};
ThankYouFactory.getConstructor('facebook')(ctorParam);
ThankYouFactory.getConstructor('generic')(ctorParam);

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

Categories