We Keep Coding

Confused on Prototype inheritance Javascript

I found this picture here
In this case, foo is a constructor function and B and C are objects. I am very confused, first off when you create an object does it always come with the properties and proto? Is that the default? Also in terms of the constructor function for foo. Am I correct to say that every proto of a function defaults to Function.prototype, which uses Object.prototype to create an object? The part that is confusing for me is Foo.prototype, when was this prototype created? Does a constructor function always default to the creation of a prototype which a constructor reference set back to itself and a proto set to object?

No wonder there is confusion. The picture is misleading to the point of being incorrect!
Objects created by calling a constructor function with the new keyword have their inheritance chain set to start with the prototype property of the constructor (correct in the picture).
The prototype property is created every time a function is declared using the function keyword to cover the case of the function being use as a constructor later - so you don't need to specify if a function is a constructor or not. For completeness, functions generated by the class keyword also have a prototype property.)
The function's prototype property's constructor property is set to the function when the prototype property is created (meaning when the function is declared). Again the picture is correct: the value of Foo.prototype.constructor is a reference to Foo.
What is wrong in the picture is objects a and b somehow joining together in a reverse fork and their properties becoming available to instances of Foo.
constructor is always an inherited property. If you replace the original prototype property of a function object with another object, you replace the constructor property inherited by objects constructed with the function. Although you can reset the constructor property of a functions prototype property, it's reasonably unusual and not a part of the story the picture is presenting.
If you do modify the inheritance chain by changing a function's prototype property value, the inheritance chain is still always a single threaded chain back to Object.prototype and then null. The inheritance chain never forks as shown in the picture. If you modified Foo.prototype in the picture to make it a or b, the constructor property of Foo instances would not be Foo.
The picture requires a lot of explanation to be useful.

The properties are assigned in the construction function. Any function can be used with new,thus becoming the "construction function".
var f = function(){};
var fInstance = new f();
console.log(fInstance.constructor); // *f*
If there are no properties assigned in that function (using this.propertyName), then the constructed instance will not have properties. If it does, then it will.
// No properties
var f = function(){};
// Two constructor properties, and one default property
var f = function(prop1, prop2){
this.name = prop1;
this.description = prop2;
this.something = "default";
};
If the prototype of the construction function has properties or methods (basically just glorified properties) attached to its prototype, then each instance will have those.
// No prototype
var f = function(){};
// Prototype with one method
var f = function(){};
f.prototype.test = function(){ console.log("hello"); };
The prototypes and properties must be manually created, and may or may not exist. By default, since using new requires a function, there will always be a constructor function. The process of instantiation using new will also always assign the prototype of the constructor to an object containing the constructing function as a property named constructor as well as all of the properties/methods of the construction function's prototype.

In this case, foo is a constructor function and B and C are objects.
Functions are also objects. Everything are objects. unlike classical inheritance where what defined objects are separate entities. Here an object that is an instance of Function is the constructor that will create an instance of its kind that inherits whatever object is on the constructors prototype attribute.
I am very confused, first off when you create an object does it
always come with the properties and proto? Is that the default?
Only way to get the objects own property y is if the constructor function sets this.y. If a property is not found on the object the system will continue to look at the object that was on the constructors prototype field. Some implementations has this as __proto__ but that is not a requirement. It is implementation specific how it is stored on the instance.
Also in terms of the constructor function for foo. Am I correct to say
that every proto of a function defaults to Function.prototype, which
uses Object.prototype to create an object?
function() {...} makes an instance of the constructor Function. All objects except Object itself inherits Object either indirectly or directly, including Function. Basically you can make a function like this:
var f = new Function('a', 'b', 'return a + b');
f is an instance of Function, as you can see. This is almost the same as:
var f = function(a, b) { return a + b; };
Now the first allows for text to be interpreted as code so its less efficient, but I imagine that in the early days these two would be identical in terms of interpretation. Modern engines prefer the last one since it is more predictable while the first can be seen as a specialized eval.
The part that is confusing for me is Foo.prototype, when was this
prototype created? Does a constructor function always default to the
creation of a prototype which a constructor reference set back to
itself and a proto set to object?
Yes. When the function Foo is created, JS creates by default protoype as new Object(), then it sets constructor to itself. The rest needs to be done in the code itself so we know there is something like this after the actual function code to do the rest of the class:
Foo.prototype.x = 10;
Foo.prototype.calculate = function(...) {...};

JavaScript inheritance: Object.create vs new

In JavaScript what is the difference between these two examples:
Prerequisite:
function SomeBaseClass(){
}
SomeBaseClass.prototype = {
doThis : function(){
},
doThat : function(){
}
}
Inheritance example A using Object.create:
function MyClass(){
}
MyClass.prototype = Object.create(SomeBaseClass.prototype);
Inheritance example B using the new keyword
function MyClass(){
}
MyClass.prototype = new SomeBaseClass();
Both examples seem to do the same thing. When would you chose one over the other?
An additional question:
Consider code in below link (line 15), where a reference to the the function's own constructor is stored in the prototype. Why is this useful?
https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/loaders/ImageLoader.js
Excerpt (if you don't want to open the link):
THREE.ImageLoader.prototype = {
constructor: THREE.ImageLoader
}

In your question you have mentioned that Both examples seem to do the same thing, It's not true at all, because
Your first example
function SomeBaseClass(){...}
SomeBaseClass.prototype = {
doThis : function(){...},
doThat : function(){...}
}
function MyClass(){...}
MyClass.prototype = Object.create(SomeBaseClass.prototype);
In this example, you are just inheriting SomeBaseClass' prototype but what if you have a property in your SomeBaseClass like
function SomeBaseClass(){
this.publicProperty='SomeValue';
}
and if you use it like
var obj=new MyClass();
console.log(obj.publicProperty); // undefined
​console.log(obj);​
The obj object won't have publicProperty property like in this example.
Your second example
MyClass.prototype = new SomeBaseClass();
It's executing the constructor function, making an instance of SomeBaseClass and inheriting the whole SomeBaseClass object. So, if you use
var obj=new MyClass();
console.log(obj.publicProperty); // SomeValue
console.log(obj);​
In this case its publicProperty property is also available to the obj object like in this example.
Since the Object.create is not available in some old browsers, in that case you can use
if(!Object.create)
{
Object.create=function(o){
function F(){}
F.prototype=o;
return new F();
}
}
Above code just adds Object.create function if it's not available so you can use Object.create function and I think the code above describes what Object.create actually does. Hope it'll help in some way.

Both examples seem to do the same thing.
That's true in your case.
When would you chose one over the other?
When SomeBaseClass has a function body, this would get executed with the new keyword. This usually is not intended - you only want to set up the prototype chain. In some cases it even could cause serious issues because you actually instantiate an object, whose private-scoped variables are shared by all MyClass instances as they inherit the same privileged methods. Other side effects are imaginable.
So, you should generally prefer Object.create. Yet, it is not supported in some legacy browsers; which is the reason you see the new-approach much too frequent as it often does no (obvious) harm. Also have a look at this answer.

The difference becomes obvious if you use Object.create() as it is intended. Actually, it does entirely hideout the prototype word from your code, it'll do the job under the hood. Using Object.create(), we can go like
var base = {
doThis : function(){
},
doThat : function(){
}
};
And then we can extend/inherit other objects from this
var myObject = Object.create( base );
// myObject will now link to "base" via the prototype chain internally
So this is another concept, a more "object oriented" way of inherting. There is no "constructor function" out of the box using Object.create() for instance. But of course you could just create and call a self defined constructor function within those objects.
One argument for using Object.create() is that it might look more natural to mix/*inherit* from other objects, than using Javascripts default way.

I am not an expert in java script but here is a simple example to understand difference between "Object.create" and "new" ..
step 1 : create the parent function with some properties and actions..
function Person() {
this.name = 'venkat';
this.address = 'dallas';
this.mobile='xxxxxxxxxx'
}
Person.prototype.func1 = function () {
return this.name + this.address;
}
step 2 : create a child function (PersonSalary) which extends above Person function using New keyword..
function PersonSalary() {
Person.call(this);
}
PersonSalary.prototype = new Person();
PersonSalary();
step 3 : create second child function (PersonLeaves) which extends above Person function using Object.create keyword..
function PersonLeaves() {
Person.call(this);
}
PersonLeaves.prototype = Object.create(Person.prototype);
PersonLeaves();
// Now check both child functions prototypes.
PersonSalary.prototype
PersonLeaves.prototype
both of these child functions will link to Person(parent function) prototype and can access it's methods but if you create child function using new it will return a brand new object with all parent properties which we don't need and also when you create any object or function using "New" that parent function is executed which we don't want to be.
Here are the takeaways
if you just want to delegate to some methods in parent function and don't want a new object to be created , using Object.create is best way.

A couple of additions to this answer set, mindful that JS obviously now has native classes:
In both Example A and Example B the static inheritance chain is not configured.
In Example B the superclass constructor is run at the "wrong time". It is run before the call to instantiate an instance of the subclass, before any arguments are known and perhaps before you have decided to instantiate an instance of the subclass. Note that constructors can contain any logic they like, including side-effectful logic, so this can be impactful.
Post-ES6 the inheritance chain can be configured in a standardised way using the class and extends keywords (which solve both of these issues).
See also.

Can a function be considered similar to a class?

If I have a function say:
var my_function = function()
{
}
If the function is not called, it is not taking up memory, it is just text sitting in memory.
However if you call it by say...
function_instance = new my_function();
It is instantiated is a sort of way, and the variables and methods it contains are loaded into memory.
Is this a way to represent a class/object model similar to C++?
Is my interpretation correct?

In javascript, the class concept does not exist. Everything is an object. When you use the new operator it copies the prototype of that function into a new object. In other words, you can emulate what class can do in c++, but it's not a class.

"a way to represent a class/object model similar to C++" would be through the use of prototypes.
As Kevin M pointed out, you can use the this keyword to create instance variables in a function, like so:
var my_function(foo)
{
this.foo = foo;
this.bar = function()
{
// bar-ing here
}
}
The problem however, that whenever you instantiate my_function(), a new instance of the my_function.bar function is also created. Enter prototypes:
var barPrototype = { "bar" : function()
{
// bar-ing here
}
};
var my_function(foo)
{
this.foo = foo;
}
my_function.prototype = barPrototype;
So, to sum it all up, the prototype keyword can be used to create function-specific, inheritable properties that are analoguous to C++'s member functions. Member functions of C++ aren't instantiated for each instance of a class. Instead, the compiler adds a this pointer to the function's parameters; this pointer points to the instance that the member function is called on.
More JSey fun to be had here: http://javascript.infogami.com/Javascript_in_Ten_Minutes

In JavaScript a new class is defined by creating a function. The function may contain other functions (methods), properties, etc.
When a function is called using the new operation the function becomes a constructor for that class. Inside the constructor the variable " this " is created and points to the object.
function Man(){
this.name = 'John';
}
var person = new Man;
console.log(person.name);

As mentioned, Javascript functions can act as objects so Javascript can be object oriented but object inheritance is prototypical and not like C++. John Resig, the creator of jQuery, has done some work on emulating traditional classes and inheritance in javascript. You could take a look at his blog for an interesting example:
http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/

Prototype or inline, what is the difference?

I am just learning Javascript and I was wondering, is using the prototype declaration, like this:
function TSomeObj()
{
this.name="my object";
}
TSomeObj.prototype.showname = function() {
alert(this.name);
}
Basically the same as doing it like this:
function TSomeObj()
{
this.name="my object";
this.showname = function() {
alert(this.name);
}
}
When I dump the object's properties I get the same result:
TSomeObj (inline version) =
{
'name': 'my object',
'test': function
}
TSomeObj (prototype declaration) =
{
'name': 'my object',
'test': function
}
What exactly is the benefit of using prototype declarations? Except less cluttering and more orderly sourcecode perhaps.
Update: I should perhaps have made it more clear that it was the final result i was curious about. The end result is ofcourse the same (i.e both register a new function in the object prototype) - but the way they do it is wildly different. Thank you for all replies and info!

Note: This answer is accurate but does not fully reflect the new way to create classes in JavaScript using the ES6 class Thing {} syntax. Everything here does in fact apply to ES6 classes, but might take some translation.
I initially answered the wrong question. Here is the answer to your actually-asked question. I'll leave my other notes in just in case they're helpful to someone.
Adding properties to an object in the constructor function through this.prop is different from doing so outside through Object.prototype.prop.
The most important difference is that when you add a property to the prototype of a function and instantiate a new object from it, that property is accessed in the new object by stepping up the inheritance chain rather than it being directly on the object.
var baseobj = {};
function ObjType1() {
this.prop = 2;
}
function ObjType2() {}
ObjType1.prototype = baseobj;
ObjType2.prototype = baseobj; // these now have the *same* prototype object.
ObjType1.prototype.prop = 1;
// identical to `baseobj.prop = 1` -- we're modifying the prototype
var a = new ObjType1(),
b = new ObjType2();
//a.hasOwnProperty('prop') : true
//b.hasOwnProperty('prop') : false -- it has no local property "prop"
//a: { prop = 2 }, b : { prop = 1 } -- b's "prop" comes from the inheritance chain
baseobj.prop = 3;
//b's value changed because we changed the prototype
//a: { prop = 2 }, b : { prop = 3 }
delete a.prop;
//a is now reflecting the prototype's "prop" instead of its own:
//a: { prop = 3 }, b : { prop = 3 }
A second difference is that adding properties to a prototype occurs once when that code executes, but adding properties to the object inside the constructor occurs each time a new object is created. This means using the prototype performs better and uses less memory, because no new storage is required until you set that same property on the leaf/proximate object.
Another difference is that internally-added functions have access to private variables and functions (those declared in the constructor with var, const, or let), and prototype-based or externally-added functions do not, simply because they have the wrong scope:
function Obj(initialx, initialy) {
var x = initialx,
y = initialy;
this.getX = function() {
return x;
}
var twoX = function() { // mostly identical to `function twoX() { ... }`
return x * 2;
}
this.getTwoX = function() {
return twoX();
}
}
Obj.prototype.getY = function() {
return y; // fails, even if you try `this.y`
}
Obj.prototype.twoY = function() {
return y * 2; // fails
}
Obj.prototype.getTwoY = function() {
return twoY(); // fails
}
var obj = new Obj();
// obj.y : fails, you can't access "y", it is internal
// obj.twoX() : fails, you can't access "twoX", it is internal
// obj.getTwoX() : works, it is "public" but has access to the twoX function
General notes about JavaScript objects, functions, and inheritance
All non-string and non-scalar variables in JavaScript are objects. (And some primitive types undergo boxing when a method is used on them such as true.toString() or 1.2.valueOf()). They all act somewhat like a hash/dictionary in that they have an unlimited(?) number of key/value pairs that can be assigned to them. The current list of primitives in JavaScript is: string, number, bigint, boolean, undefined, symbol, null.
Each object has an inheritance chain of "prototypes" that go all the way up to the base object. When you access a property of an object, if that property doesn't exist on the object itself, then the secret prototype of that object is checked, and if not present then that object's prototype, so on and so forth all the way up. Some browsers expose this prototype through the property __proto__. The more modern way to get the prototype of an object is Object.getPrototypeOf(obj). Regular objects don't have a prototype property because this property is for functions, to store the object that will be the prototype of any new objects created using that function as their constructor.
A JavaScript function is a special case of an object, that in addition to having the key/value pairs of an object also has parameters and a series of statements that are executed in order.
Every time a function object is invoked it is paired with another object that is accessed from within the function by the keyword this. Usually, the this object is the one that the function is a property of. For example, ''.replace() boxes the string literal to a String, then inside the replace function, this refers to that object. another example is when a function is attached to a DOM element (perhaps an onclick function on a button), then this refers to the DOM element. You can manually choose the paired this object dynamically using apply or call.
When a JavaScript function is invoked with the new keyword as in var obj = new Obj(), this causes a special thing to happen. If you don't specifically return anything, then instead of obj now containing the return value of the Obj function, it contains the this object that was paired with the function at invocation time, which will be a new empty object with the first parent in its inheritance chain set to Obj.prototype. The invoked Obj() function, while running, can modify the properties of the new object. Then that object is returned.
You don't have to worry much about the keyword constructor, just suffice it to say that obj.constructor points to the Obj function (so you can find the thing that created it), but you'll probably not need to use this for most things.
Back to your question. To understand the difference between modifying the properties of an object from within the constructor and modifying its prototype, try this:
var baseobj = {prop1: 'x'};
function TSomeObj() {
this.prop2 = 'y';
};
TSomeObj.prototype = baseobj;
var a = new TSomeObj();
//now dump the properties of `a`
a.prop1 = 'z';
baseobj.prop1 = 'w';
baseobj.prop2 = 'q';
//dump properties of `a` again
delete a.prop1;
//dump properties of `a` again
You'll see that setting a.prop1 is actually creating a new property of the proximate object, but it doesn't overwrite the base object's prop1. When you remove prop1 from a then you get the inherited prop1 that we changed. Also, even though we added prop2 after a was created, a still has that property. This is because javascript uses prototype inheritance rather than classic inheritance. When you modify the prototype of TSomeObj you also modify all its previously-instantiated objects because they are actively inheriting from it.
When you instantiate a class in any programing language, the new object takes on the properties of its "constructor" class (which we usually think of as synonymous with the object). And in most programming languages, you can't change the properties or methods of the class or the instantiated object, except by stopping your program and changing the class declaration.
Javascript, though, lets you modify the properties of objects and "classes" at run-time, and all instantiated objects of that type class are also modified unless they have their own properties that override the modification. Objects can beget objects which can beget objects, so this works in a chain all the way up to the base Object class. I put "classes" in quotes because there really isn't such a thing as a class in JavaScript (even in ES6, it's mostly syntactic sugar), except that the new keyword lets you make new objects with the inheritance chain hooked up for you, so we call them classes even though they're just the result of constructor functions being called with the new keyword.
Some other notes: functions have a Function constructor, objects have an Object constructor. The prototype of the Function constructor is (surprise, surprise) Object.
Inheriting from an object without the constructor function running
In some cases, it's useful to be able to create a new "instance of an object" without the constructor function running. You can inherit from a class without running the class's constructor function like so (almost like manually doing child.__proto__ = parent):
function inheritFrom(Class) {
function F() {};
F.prototype = Class.prototype;
return new F();
}
A better way to do this now is Object.setPrototypeOf().

The accepted answer missed the most important distinctions between prototypes and methods bound to a specific object, so I'm going to clarify
Prototype'd functions are only ever declared once. Functions attached using
this.method = function(){}
are redeclared again and again whenever you create an instance of the class. Prototypes are, thus, generally the preferred way to attach functions to a class since they use less memory since every instance of that class uses the same functions. As Erik pointed out, however, functions attached using prototypes vs attached to a specific object have a different scope, so prototypes don't have access to "private" variables defined in a function constructor.
As for what a prototype actually is, since it's an odd concept coming from traditional OO languages:
Whenever you create a new instance of a function:
var obj = new Foo();
the following logic is run (not literally this code, but something similar):
var inheritsFrom = Foo,
objectInstance = {};
objectInstance.__proto__ = inheritsFrom.prototype;
inheritsFrom.apply( objectInstance, arguments );
return objectInstance;
so:
A new object is created, {}, to represent the new instance of the function
The prototype of the function is copied to __proto__ of the new object. Note that this is a copy-by-reference, so Foo.prototype and objectInstance.__proto__ now refer to the same object and changes made in one can be seen in the other immediately.
The function is called with this new object being set as this in the function
and whenever you try to access a function or property, e.g.: obj.bar(), the following logic gets run:
if( obj.hasOwnProperty('bar') ) {
// use obj.bar
} else if( obj.__proto__ ){
var proto = obj.__proto__;
while(proto){
if( proto.hasOwnProperty('bar') ){
// use proto.bar;
}
proto = proto.__proto__;
}
}
in other words, the following are checked:
obj.bar
obj.__proto__.bar
obj.__proto__.__proto__.bar
obj.__proto__.__proto__.__proto__.bar
... etc
until __proto__ eventually equals null because you've reached the end of the prototype chain.
Many browsers actually expose __proto__ now, so you can inspect it in Firebug or the Console in Chrome/Safari. IE doesn't expose it (and may very well have a different name for the same thing internally).

JavaScript function binding (this keyword) is lost after assignment

this is one of most mystery feature in JavaScript, after assigning the object method to other variable, the binding (this keyword) is lost
var john = {
name: 'John',
greet: function(person) {
alert("Hi " + person + ", my name is " + this.name);
}
};
john.greet("Mark"); // Hi Mark, my name is John
var fx = john.greet;
fx("Mark"); // Hi Mark, my name is
my question is:
1) what is happening behind the assignment? var fx = john.greet;
is this copy by value or copy by reference?
fx and john.greet point to two diferent function, right?
2) since fx is a global method, the scope chain contains only global object. what is the value of this property in Variable object?

john.greet("Mark") actually calls a function. When you do var fx = john.greet;, you're getting a reference to the function. So when you call it, this is not bound to john. What you're actually doing is window.fx("Mark") and so this is the window object. You were on the right track when you said that it was in the global context. In this particular instance, the global object is window, and so fx is actually window.fx.
When you have a function reference you should use call or apply if you want to set the value of this. Try doing this:
fx.call(john, "Mark");
The first argument in call or apply is the value used for this in the context of the function call.
EDIT
Some people mentioned that the real issue here might be confusion surrounding an object literal vs. an instance of an object. You're creating an object literal which also behaves kind of like a singleton. You cannot create a new instance of that object. In this case john is a reference to that object literal. In that context, this in the function greet refers to the object literal itself. Hence when you call john.greet("Mark"), this is bound to john.
When you grab a reference to john.greet just by itself and assigning it to a global variable, you're essentially doing this:
var fx = function(person) {
alert("Hi " + person + ", my name is " + this.name);
}
In this scenario, this is window, because fx is basically window.fx (since the global object here is window. Assuming this code was wrapped inside another function, then the global object would refer to that function.
If you want to create multiple instances of an object, you can do something like this:
var Person = function(name) {
var self = this; //maintains a reference to the instance
this.name = name;
this.greet = function(name) {
alert("Hi " + name + ", my name is " + self.name);
}
}
var john = new Person("John");
john.greet("Mark"); // alerts "Hi Mark, my name is John"
var fx = john.greet;
fx("Mark"); // also alerts "Hi Mark, my name is John"
Here, the self variable (which is local to the function) maintains a reference to the actual instance because you're binding it to this when you create the object.
There are many best practices associated with OOP in Javascript. You can Google and find out (there are many links). I recommend reading stuff from Douglas Crockford especially.

1) fx and john.greet are referring to the same function object, the assignment operation for objects, works by reference.
For primitive values, like String, Number, Boolean undefined or null, a copy of the value will be made.
2) The this value refers to the global object.
The this value is not a property of the Variable Object and it has nothing to do with the scope chain, is a special reserved word, and it is determined implicitly when a function is called (you can also set it explicitly via call or apply).
JavaScript internally handles a Reference type, which consists of two components, the base object and the property name, when a function is invoked, the this value is determined implicitly by getting the base object (by the internal GetValue operation).
And finally, the last case where this is set implicitly is when you invoke a function with the new operator, the this keyword will refer to a newly created object.
So in brief, here is how this works implicitly:
1- When a function is called as a method (the function is invoked as member of an object):
obj.method(); // 'this' inside method will refer to obj
2- A normal function call:
myFunction(); // 'this' inside the function will refer to the Global object
// or
(function () {})();
3- When the new operator is used:
var obj = new MyObj(); // 'this' will refer to a newly created object.

As I understand it, you're only assigning that method to the variable "fx." The context of the john object doesn't come along with it.
Off the top of my head, "this" in the context of fx will refer to the global object, which in the context of a browser is (I believe) equivalent to your window object.
(editing to clarify global object. Sort of)

Because you're only setting fx to the greet method and not the entire john object, it has no concept of it's parent and becomes globally scoped. So in essence, it's passing by value in that in only copies the method.
Since the function is now globally scoped, "this" becomes the Window object.
If you instead set fx to john, you get what's expected.
var john = {
name: 'John',
greet: function(person) {
alert("Hi " + person + ", my name is " + this.name);
}
};
john.greet("Mark"); // Hi Mark, my name is John
var fx = john;
fx.greet("Mark"); // Hi Mark, my name is John

inspired by #Vivin Paliath answer, actually I come out something new. As to me, I always try my best to make javascript programming the same way as java, especially in OOP.
So my suggestion is to avoid using this as possible as we can , when we first do
var self = this;
we should use self instead of this in all function (prototype function, whatsoever), but if we write something like this:
function MyObject = {
var self = this;
};
MyObject.prototype = {
method1 = function(data){
self.data = data;
}
}
This is not gonna work, because prototype is an object in MyObject, It can not access private member self owned by MyObject. My solution for this is simple:
function MyObject = {
var self = this;
MyObject.prototype.method1 = function(data){
self.data = data;
};
}
This takes the advantage of prototype's efficiency and also we do not have to care about all the this issues. Though we gonna type a lot of MyObject.prototype.xxxx thing.
If this helpful to your guys, please give me some thumb up, so I can gather 15 reputation to thumb up others, thanks.