We Keep Coding

Whats the difference between JavaScript Inheritance using Prototype and method call? [duplicate]

What does the following code do:
WeatherWidget.prototype = new Widget;
where Widget is a constructor, and I want to extend the Widget 'class' with a new function WeatherWidget.
What is the new keyword doing there and what would happen if it is left out?

WeatherWidget.prototype = new Widget;
The new keyword calls Widget as a constructor and the return value is assigned to the prototype property. (If you would omit new, you would not call Widget unless you added an argument list, (). However, calling Widget that way might not be possible. It would certainly have the potential to spoil the global namespace if it is not strict mode code and the implementation is conforming to ECMAScript Ed. 5.x there, because then this in the constructor would refer to ECMAScript’s global object.)
But this approach actually comes from a really viral bad example in the old Netscape JavaScript 1.3 Guide (mirrored at Oracle, formerly Sun).
This way, your WeatherWidget instances will all inherit from the same Widget instance. The prototype chain will be:
[new WeatherWidget()] → [new Widget()] → [Widget.prototype] → …
This can be useful, but most of the time you would not want it to happen. You should not do that here unless you want all your WeatherWidget instances to share among them the property values they inherit from this Widget instance, and only through it, from Widget.prototype. Another problem is that you need to call the parent constructor this way, which may not allow to be called without arguments as you do, or would not initialize properly. It certainly has nothing to do with emulation of class-based inheritance as known, e.g., from Java.
The proper way to implement class-based inheritance in these prototype-based languages is (originally devised by Lasse Reichstein Nielsen in comp.lang.javascript in 2003, for cloning objects):
function Dummy () {}
Dummy.prototype = Widget.prototype;
WeatherWidget.prototype = new Dummy();
WeatherWidget.prototype.constructor = WeatherWidget;
The constructor prototype property should be fixed as well, so that your WeatherWidget instances w would have w.constructor === WeatherWidget as expected, and not w.constructor === Widget. However, be aware that it is enumerable afterwards.
This way, WeatherWidget instances will inherit properties through the prototype chain, but will not share property values among them, because they inherit from Widget.prototype through Dummy which has no own properties:
[new WeatherWidget()] → [new Dummy()] → [Widget.prototype] → …
In implementations of ECMAScript Ed. 5 and later, you can and should use
WeatherWidget.prototype = Object.create(Widget.prototype, {
constructor: {value: WeatherWidget}
});
instead. This has the additional advantage that the resulting constructor property is not writable, enumerable, or configurable.
The parent constructor will only be called if you call it explicitly, from WeatherWidget, for example with
function WeatherWidget (…)
{
Widget.apply(this, arguments);
}
See also Function.prototype.extend() in my JSX:object.js for how to generalize this. Using that code, it would become
WeatherWidget.extend(Widget);
My Function.prototype.extend() takes an optional second argument with which you can easily augment the prototype of WeatherWidget instances:
WeatherWidget.extend(Widget, {
foo: 42,
bar: "baz"
});
would be equivalent to
WeatherWidget.extend(Widget);
WeatherWidget.prototype.foo = 42;
WeatherWidget.prototype.bar = "baz";
You will still need to call the parent constructor explicitly in the child constructor, though; that part cannot reasonably be automated. But my Function.prototype.extend() adds a _super property to the Function instance which makes it easier:
function WeatherWidget (…)
{
WeatherWidget._super.apply(this, arguments);
}
Other people have implemented similar extensions.

According to some odd Javascript rules, new Widget actually invokes the constructor rather than returning a reference to the constructor. This question actually answers the question the difference between var a = new Widget() and var a = Widget().
In simple words, the new keyword tells Javascript to call the function Widget under a different set of rules than a regular function call. Going off the top of my head, the ones I remember are:
There is a brand new object created
Widget can use the this keyword to refer to that object.
If Widget does not return anything, this new object will be created.
This object will inherit a few additional properties that will indicate it was created by Widget that are used to track down property chains.
Without the new keyword, a call to widget would
If in strict mode, this will be set to undefined.
Otherwise, this will refer to the global object. (Called window by the browser.)
If the function does not return anything, then undefined will be returned.
Reference:
new keyword

WeatherWidget.prototype = new Widget;
does create a new instance of the Widget constructor and use it as WeatherWidget's prototype object. Using the new keyword creates the new object, sets up the inheritance chain of it to Widget.prototype, and applies the constructor function on it (where you can set up individual properties'n'methods, or create private-scoped variables).
Without the new keyword it would be an assignment of the Widget function to the prototype property - which does not make any sense. If you'd add the optional brackets (i.e. Widget()), it would invoke the function normally, but not as a constructor on a new instance, but with the global object as context. See also the reference for the this keyword.
Notice that you should not really use this code. As said, it creates a new instance by invoking the constructor function. But the purpose is only to create an empty object that inherits from the Widgets prototype object, not to instantiate something (which could do some harm, depending on the code). Instead, you should use Object.create (or its popular shim):
WeatherWidget.prototype = Object.create(Widget.prototype);
see also Javascript basic inheritance vs Crockford prototypical inheritance

In plain english you're extending one class with another. A prototype can only be an object so you set WeatherWidget's prototype to a new instance of Widget. If you removed the new keyword you would be setting the prototype to the literal constructor function which doesn't do anything.
var Appendages = function(){
this.legs = 2
};
var Features = function() {
this.ears = 4;
this.eyes = 1;
}
// Extend Features class with Appendages class.
Features.prototype = new Appendages;
var sara = new Features();
sara.legs;
// Returns 2.
Understanding that the prototype can be any object, something like this would also work:
var appendages = {
legs : 2
};
var Features = function() {
this.ears = 4;
this.eyes = 1;
}
// Extend Features class with Appendages class.
Features.prototype = appendages;
var sara = new Features();
sara.legs;
// Returns 2.
In JavaScript, if the key isn't found on the object, it checks the parents object you extended it from. Hence you can change items on the parent object on the fly like so:
var appendages = {
legs : 2
};
var Features = function() {
this.ears = 4;
this.eyes = 1;
}
// Extend Features class with Appendages class.
Features.prototype = appendages;
var sara = new Features();
sara.legs;
// Returns 2.
appendages.hair = true;
sara.hair;
// Returns true.
Note that this all happens during instantiation which means you can't just switch out the prototype after you've created the object:
var foo = {name : 'bob'};
var bar = {nachos : 'cheese'};
foo.prototype = bar;
foo.nachos;
// undefined
However, all modern browsers come with this newer __proto__ method, which allows you to do it:
var foo = {name : 'bob'};
var bar = {nachos : 'cheese'};
foo.__proto__ = bar;
foo.nachos
// "cheese"
Read up more on understanding JavaScript prototypes here.
This article from Pivotal Labs is also really good.

new is important for prototype inheritance; i.e.
Create a constructor with a method
var Obj = function(){};
Obj.prototype = {};
Obj.prototype.foo = function(){console.log('foo');};
Make a second constructor to extend the first with
var ExObj = function(){};
Now, if we prototype without new,
ExObj.prototype = Obj;
(new ExObj).foo(); // TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'foo'
Which means we haven't inherited from the prototype of Obj, however, if we prototype with new
ExObj.prototype = new Obj();
(new ExObj).foo(); // console logs 'foo'
Furthermore, adding new things to the prototype of ExObj doesn't make any changes to it's base, Obj.

JavaScript functions are "MULTIPLE(2) PERSONALITIES"!!!
They are regular-functions with input and output, which we call like function().
Also they are constructors of JS-objects, when we use the new keyword. >>>BUT<<< the new created objects are NOT INSTANCES of the constructors (like the objects of classes in class-based inheritance). The new objects are instances of the object of the prototype property of the constructor.
Then in WeatherWidget.prototype = you put the object you want to inherit its properties to the objects the constructor will create, which usually is new function() and not a function.
JavaScript created HUGE confusion in the programming community by naming the objects created by constructors, INSTANCES of them with the instanceof keyword.
> function f(){}
undefined
> new f() instanceof f
true

Javascript Inheritance and the funny behaviour of 'this' [duplicate]

What does the following code do:
WeatherWidget.prototype = new Widget;
where Widget is a constructor, and I want to extend the Widget 'class' with a new function WeatherWidget.
What is the new keyword doing there and what would happen if it is left out?

WeatherWidget.prototype = new Widget;
The new keyword calls Widget as a constructor and the return value is assigned to the prototype property. (If you would omit new, you would not call Widget unless you added an argument list, (). However, calling Widget that way might not be possible. It would certainly have the potential to spoil the global namespace if it is not strict mode code and the implementation is conforming to ECMAScript Ed. 5.x there, because then this in the constructor would refer to ECMAScript’s global object.)
But this approach actually comes from a really viral bad example in the old Netscape JavaScript 1.3 Guide (mirrored at Oracle, formerly Sun).
This way, your WeatherWidget instances will all inherit from the same Widget instance. The prototype chain will be:
[new WeatherWidget()] → [new Widget()] → [Widget.prototype] → …
This can be useful, but most of the time you would not want it to happen. You should not do that here unless you want all your WeatherWidget instances to share among them the property values they inherit from this Widget instance, and only through it, from Widget.prototype. Another problem is that you need to call the parent constructor this way, which may not allow to be called without arguments as you do, or would not initialize properly. It certainly has nothing to do with emulation of class-based inheritance as known, e.g., from Java.
The proper way to implement class-based inheritance in these prototype-based languages is (originally devised by Lasse Reichstein Nielsen in comp.lang.javascript in 2003, for cloning objects):
function Dummy () {}
Dummy.prototype = Widget.prototype;
WeatherWidget.prototype = new Dummy();
WeatherWidget.prototype.constructor = WeatherWidget;
The constructor prototype property should be fixed as well, so that your WeatherWidget instances w would have w.constructor === WeatherWidget as expected, and not w.constructor === Widget. However, be aware that it is enumerable afterwards.
This way, WeatherWidget instances will inherit properties through the prototype chain, but will not share property values among them, because they inherit from Widget.prototype through Dummy which has no own properties:
[new WeatherWidget()] → [new Dummy()] → [Widget.prototype] → …
In implementations of ECMAScript Ed. 5 and later, you can and should use
WeatherWidget.prototype = Object.create(Widget.prototype, {
constructor: {value: WeatherWidget}
});
instead. This has the additional advantage that the resulting constructor property is not writable, enumerable, or configurable.
The parent constructor will only be called if you call it explicitly, from WeatherWidget, for example with
function WeatherWidget (…)
{
Widget.apply(this, arguments);
}
See also Function.prototype.extend() in my JSX:object.js for how to generalize this. Using that code, it would become
WeatherWidget.extend(Widget);
My Function.prototype.extend() takes an optional second argument with which you can easily augment the prototype of WeatherWidget instances:
WeatherWidget.extend(Widget, {
foo: 42,
bar: "baz"
});
would be equivalent to
WeatherWidget.extend(Widget);
WeatherWidget.prototype.foo = 42;
WeatherWidget.prototype.bar = "baz";
You will still need to call the parent constructor explicitly in the child constructor, though; that part cannot reasonably be automated. But my Function.prototype.extend() adds a _super property to the Function instance which makes it easier:
function WeatherWidget (…)
{
WeatherWidget._super.apply(this, arguments);
}
Other people have implemented similar extensions.

According to some odd Javascript rules, new Widget actually invokes the constructor rather than returning a reference to the constructor. This question actually answers the question the difference between var a = new Widget() and var a = Widget().
In simple words, the new keyword tells Javascript to call the function Widget under a different set of rules than a regular function call. Going off the top of my head, the ones I remember are:
There is a brand new object created
Widget can use the this keyword to refer to that object.
If Widget does not return anything, this new object will be created.
This object will inherit a few additional properties that will indicate it was created by Widget that are used to track down property chains.
Without the new keyword, a call to widget would
If in strict mode, this will be set to undefined.
Otherwise, this will refer to the global object. (Called window by the browser.)
If the function does not return anything, then undefined will be returned.
Reference:
new keyword

WeatherWidget.prototype = new Widget;
does create a new instance of the Widget constructor and use it as WeatherWidget's prototype object. Using the new keyword creates the new object, sets up the inheritance chain of it to Widget.prototype, and applies the constructor function on it (where you can set up individual properties'n'methods, or create private-scoped variables).
Without the new keyword it would be an assignment of the Widget function to the prototype property - which does not make any sense. If you'd add the optional brackets (i.e. Widget()), it would invoke the function normally, but not as a constructor on a new instance, but with the global object as context. See also the reference for the this keyword.
Notice that you should not really use this code. As said, it creates a new instance by invoking the constructor function. But the purpose is only to create an empty object that inherits from the Widgets prototype object, not to instantiate something (which could do some harm, depending on the code). Instead, you should use Object.create (or its popular shim):
WeatherWidget.prototype = Object.create(Widget.prototype);
see also Javascript basic inheritance vs Crockford prototypical inheritance

In plain english you're extending one class with another. A prototype can only be an object so you set WeatherWidget's prototype to a new instance of Widget. If you removed the new keyword you would be setting the prototype to the literal constructor function which doesn't do anything.
var Appendages = function(){
this.legs = 2
};
var Features = function() {
this.ears = 4;
this.eyes = 1;
}
// Extend Features class with Appendages class.
Features.prototype = new Appendages;
var sara = new Features();
sara.legs;
// Returns 2.
Understanding that the prototype can be any object, something like this would also work:
var appendages = {
legs : 2
};
var Features = function() {
this.ears = 4;
this.eyes = 1;
}
// Extend Features class with Appendages class.
Features.prototype = appendages;
var sara = new Features();
sara.legs;
// Returns 2.
In JavaScript, if the key isn't found on the object, it checks the parents object you extended it from. Hence you can change items on the parent object on the fly like so:
var appendages = {
legs : 2
};
var Features = function() {
this.ears = 4;
this.eyes = 1;
}
// Extend Features class with Appendages class.
Features.prototype = appendages;
var sara = new Features();
sara.legs;
// Returns 2.
appendages.hair = true;
sara.hair;
// Returns true.
Note that this all happens during instantiation which means you can't just switch out the prototype after you've created the object:
var foo = {name : 'bob'};
var bar = {nachos : 'cheese'};
foo.prototype = bar;
foo.nachos;
// undefined
However, all modern browsers come with this newer __proto__ method, which allows you to do it:
var foo = {name : 'bob'};
var bar = {nachos : 'cheese'};
foo.__proto__ = bar;
foo.nachos
// "cheese"
Read up more on understanding JavaScript prototypes here.
This article from Pivotal Labs is also really good.

new is important for prototype inheritance; i.e.
Create a constructor with a method
var Obj = function(){};
Obj.prototype = {};
Obj.prototype.foo = function(){console.log('foo');};
Make a second constructor to extend the first with
var ExObj = function(){};
Now, if we prototype without new,
ExObj.prototype = Obj;
(new ExObj).foo(); // TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'foo'
Which means we haven't inherited from the prototype of Obj, however, if we prototype with new
ExObj.prototype = new Obj();
(new ExObj).foo(); // console logs 'foo'
Furthermore, adding new things to the prototype of ExObj doesn't make any changes to it's base, Obj.

JavaScript functions are "MULTIPLE(2) PERSONALITIES"!!!
They are regular-functions with input and output, which we call like function().
Also they are constructors of JS-objects, when we use the new keyword. >>>BUT<<< the new created objects are NOT INSTANCES of the constructors (like the objects of classes in class-based inheritance). The new objects are instances of the object of the prototype property of the constructor.
Then in WeatherWidget.prototype = you put the object you want to inherit its properties to the objects the constructor will create, which usually is new function() and not a function.
JavaScript created HUGE confusion in the programming community by naming the objects created by constructors, INSTANCES of them with the instanceof keyword.
> function f(){}
undefined
> new f() instanceof f
true

practical use prototype.constructor in javascript

In Simple words why we use prototype.constructor. I am reading an article about inheritance where I saw prototype.constructor. I see no difference in result when I comment that code. So my question why and when to use it practically.
function Mammal(name){
this.name=name;
this.action= function (){
alert('0')
}
}
function Cat(name){
this.name=name;
}
Cat.prototype = new Mammal();
//Cat.prototype.constructor=Cat; // Otherwise instances of Cat would have a constructor of Mammal
Cat.prototype.action=function(){
alert('1')
}
var y= new Mammal()
var x= new Cat()
y.action()
x.action()

It's mostly convention. Although nothing in JavaScript itself uses the constructor property, sometimes people use it in their code, assuming that it will refer back to the object's constructor. It's not just convention anymore, see ¹ for details.
When you create a function:
function Cat() {
}
The function starts out with an object on its prototype property that has a property called constructor that points back to the function:
console.log(Cat.prototype.constructor === Cat); // true
This is in the specification. (It's also the only place in the specification that property is mentioned — e.g., JavaScript, itself, makes no use of this property at all. Not anymore.¹)
Consequently, instances created with that prototype (whether created via the constructor function or other ways) inherit that constructor property:
var c = new Cat();
console.log(c.constructor === Cat); // true
var c2 = Object.create(Cat.prototype);
console.log(c2.constructor === Cat); // true, even though Cat wasn't used
When you replace the prototype property on a function, as you typically do when building hierarchies:
Cat.prototype = new Mammal(); // This is an anti-pattern, btw, see below
...you end up with an object on Cat.prototype where constructor points to Mammal. Since that's not what one normally expects, it's customary to fix it:
Cat.prototype.constructor = Cat;
Although nothing in JavaScript itself uses the property (it does now¹), sometimes people use it in their code, assuming that it will refer back to the object's constructor.
Re the anti-pattern in that code: When using constructor functions to build a hierarchy, it's not best practice to actually call the "base" constructor to create the "derived" constructor's prototype. Instead, use Object.create to create the prototype:
Cat.prototype = Object.create(Mammal.prototype);
Cat.prototype.constructor = Cat;
...and then chain to Mammal in Cat:
function Cat() {
Mammal.call(this);
// ...
}
Why do it that way? Consider: What if the base requires arguments you won't get until construction-time to meaningfully initialize an instance? You can't pass it arguments until you have them. The pattern above allows you to handle that situation.
Note that Object.create was added in ES5 and so is missing from some old browsers (like IE8). The single-argument version of it can be shimmed/polyfilled trivially, though:
if (!Object.create) {
Object.create = function(proto, props) {
if (typeof props !== "undefined") {
throw new Error("The second argument of Object.create cannot be shimmed.");
}
function f() { }
f.prototype = proto;
return new f;
};
}
I'll just note that constructor functions are just one way of building object hierarchies in JavaScript. They're not the only way, because JavaScript uses prototypical inheritance. JavaScript is so powerful you can use constructor functions to get something similar to class-like inheritance, but it also lets you do more traditional prototypical-style inheritance directly.
¹ "Although nothing in JavaScript itself uses the constructor property..." That's not true anymore as of ES2015 (aka "ES6"). Now, the constructor property is used in a couple of places (such as the SpeciesConstructor and ArraySpeciesCreate abstract operations), which are used in various classes that have methods returning new instances of the class, such as Array#slice and Promise#then. It's used in those places to ensure that subclasses work correctly: E.g., if you subclass Array, and use slice on an instance of the subclass, the array returned by slice is an instance of your subclass, not a raw Array — because slice uses ArraySpeciesCreate.

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.

why do we use `Boy.prototype = new Human;` to simulate inheritance?

i don't get why everyone is using Boy.prototype = new Human; to simulate inheritance. Look, what we want is the function's of A right? we can do that without instantiating a new A (in fact instantiating a new A does give us undesirable results, in the sense that we are actually running the instantiating function which isn't what we want)
So isn't this a better solution?
for (var prop_name in Human.prototype) {
Object.defineProperty(
Boy.prototype,
prop_name,
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Human.prototype,prop_name)
);
}
Say we are that particular and want not only the enumerable properties in Human.prototype we could still achieve it by using Object.getOwnPropertyNames and calling it on the prototype chain, which in turn is available to us through Object.getPrototypeOf.
So what exactly is the benefit of doing Boy.prototype = new Human; to simulate inheritance when we have better options available to us?

A better option is to create an intermediate to hold the prototype.
function extend(clazz, superclass) {
var intermediate = function() {};
intermediate.prototype = superclass.prototype;
clazz.prototype = new intermediate();
// Following line is optional, but useful
clazz.prototype.constructor = clazz;
}
This avoids unnecessary copying, but still means that you don't need to instantiate an object that will do work in its constructor. It also sets up the prototype chain so that you can use instanceof. It also doesn't result in superclass prototype contamination which some inheritance antipatterns can.
For completeness, your subclass should call the superclass constructor in its constructor, which you can do with Superclass.call(this);.
EDIT: Since ES5, you can replace calls to extend with
Subclass.prototype = Object.create(Superclass.prototype);
which does the same thing.

It sets up the prototype chain correctly, meaning that instanceof and isPrototypeOf() will work
It's less verbose
There are simple but ugly workarounds to prevent a constructor function from performing its usual initialization when you're just using it to create a prototype object. For example, you could either check the arguments:
function Boy(name) {
if (arguments.length == 1) {
this.name = name;
// Do other initialization
}
}
... or move the initialization into a separate method that has to be called explicitly:
function Boy(name) {}
Boy.prototype.init = function(name) {
this.name = name;
// Do other initialization
}
This has the obvious downside of requiring you to remember to call init() whenever you create a new Boy.
In ECMAScript 5 environments (current versions of most browsers, for example), a better option may be ECMAScript 5's Object.create(), which allows you to create an object which inherits directly from another object and sets up the prototype chain for you. This can be emulated (but only approximately: see Object.defineProperty in ES5?) in non-ES5 environments:
if (!Object.create) {
Object.create = function(o) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = o;
return new F();
};
}