For example:
module.exports = {
myLibraryFunction: function myLibraryFunction() {
...
}
}
The disadvantage is obvious. It's not very DRY, which means it can easily become out-of-sync if you're not careful. It also makes your code a little more verbose.
So what are the advantages? Is the tradeoff worth it?
I use this approach when writing JS libraries. The largest advantage is that tools like the Chrome debugger will have a definite name for your function as opposed to either "anonymous" or some name composed of the function path based on the variable names containing the function. If, however, you don't care about having method names when debugging, then it really comes down to a matter of taste. If you were to minify the resulting JS code, naming elements like that would get stripped out anyway.
As far as to how DRY this approach is, consider that the repeated names occur right next to each other. A quick copy & paste is all it takes to keep them in sync. It would be nice if a JS included a feature that causes a function to be named according to the variable it has been assigned to at the point of creation (or at least the ability to dynamically re-assign the function's name). Sadly, however, this is the only way JS allows for us to name these otherwise anonymous functions.
Related
I am interested in functional programming, so I decided to try this approach on the scripting environment of my Google Sheets file, and you know that the scripting language is Google Apps Script, which is basically javascript. And it even supports some (if not all) ES6 syntax.
The problem is that I cannot directly run any code, for example:
let a = 4;
Logger.log(a);
I mean, I cannot run it globally, I need to define a function with any name, and then place the code inside that function, and I can run the function, so the function runs the code inside.
So, maybe you ask, "why this behavior makes a problem writing pure functional code?" well, because, as I know, two of the most important factors about pure functions are:
1) We must not use global variables/functions inside a function, instead we must pass as parameters (and then as arguments of course).
2) defining function inside a function is often not very good idea in terms of readability and organization of the code.
So, I want to define more functions (to do some stuff), not just one "main" function, and I could not find any way, any single way to write code (as a whole) without violating at least one of the two statements above.
So, I mean, I can not write anything without making at least one non-pure function.
As a user explained in the comments:
Your 1st assumption is partially incorrect. A function must not depend on global, mutable variables, but it may depend on global constants and global pure functions. However, often you rather want to pass a function dependency as an argument to obtain a more general higher order function. Your 2nd assumption is merely opinion based.
So you could, for example, define a main function to run your code as a whole while defining functions inside the main function to achieve functional programming with Apps Script.
What are the advantages/disadvantages in terms of memory management of the following?
Assigning to a variable then passing it to a function
const a = {foo: 'bar'}; // won't be reused anywhere else, for readability
myFunc(a);
Passing directly to a function
myFunc({foo: 'bar'});
The first and second code have absolutely no difference between them (unless you also need to use a later in your code) in the way the variable is passed.
The are only 2 cases in which the first might be preferred over the second.
You need to use the variable elsewhere
The variable declaration is too long and you want to split it in two lines or you are using a complex algorithm and want to give a name to each step for readability.
It depends on the implementation of the JavaScript engine. One engine might allocate memory for the variable in the first example and not allocate memory in the directly-passed example, while another implementation might be smart enough to compile the code in such a way that it makes the first example not allocate memory for a variable and thus leaves the first example behaving as the directly-passed example.
I don't know enough about the specific engines to tell you what each one does specifically. You'd have to take a look at each JS engine (or ask authors of each) to get a more conclusive answer.
Is there any way to easily fix this issue or do I really need to rewrite all the legacy code?
PHP Fatal error: Call-time pass-by-reference has been removed in ... on line 30
This happens everywhere as variables are passed into functions as references throughout the code.
You should be denoting the call by reference in the function definition, not the actual call. Since PHP started showing the deprecation errors in version 5.3, I would say it would be a good idea to rewrite the code.
From the documentation:
There is no reference sign on a function call - only on function definitions. Function definitions alone are enough to correctly pass the argument by reference. As of PHP 5.3.0, you will get a warning saying that "call-time pass-by-reference" is deprecated when you use & in foo(&$a);.
For example, instead of using:
// Wrong way!
myFunc(&$arg); # Deprecated pass-by-reference argument
function myFunc($arg) { }
Use:
// Right way!
myFunc($var); # pass-by-value argument
function myFunc(&$arg) { }
For anyone who, like me, reads this because they need to update a giant legacy project to 5.6: as the answers here point out, there is no quick fix: you really do need to find each occurrence of the problem manually, and fix it.
The most convenient way I found to find all problematic lines in a project (short of using a full-blown static code analyzer, which is very accurate but I don't know any that take you to the correct position in the editor right away) was using Visual Studio Code, which has a nice PHP linter built in, and its search feature which allows searching by Regex. (Of course, you can use any IDE/Code editor for this that does PHP linting and Regex searches.)
Using this regex:
^(?!.*function).*(\&\$)
it is possible to search project-wide for the occurrence of &$ only in lines that are not a function definition.
This still turns up a lot of false positives, but it does make the job easier.
VSCode's search results browser makes walking through and finding the offending lines super easy: you just click through each result, and look out for those that the linter underlines red. Those you need to fix.
PHP and references are somewhat unintuitive. If used appropriately references in the right places can provide large performance improvements or avoid very ugly workarounds and unusual code.
The following will produce an error:
function f(&$v){$v = true;}
f(&$v);
function f($v){$v = true;}
f(&$v);
None of these have to fail as they could follow the rules below but have no doubt been removed or disabled to prevent a lot of legacy confusion.
If they did work, both involve a redundant conversion to reference and the second also involves a redundant conversion back to a scoped contained variable.
The second one used to be possible allowing a reference to be passed to code that wasn't intended to work with references. This is extremely ugly for maintainability.
This will do nothing:
function f($v){$v = true;}
$r = &$v;
f($r);
More specifically, it turns the reference back into a normal variable as you have not asked for a reference.
This will work:
function f(&$v){$v = true;}
f($v);
This sees that you are passing a non-reference but want a reference so turns it into a reference.
What this means is that you can't pass a reference to a function where a reference is not explicitly asked for making it one of the few areas where PHP is strict on passing types or in this case more of a meta type.
If you need more dynamic behaviour this will work:
function f(&$v){$v = true;}
$v = array(false,false,false);
$r = &$v[1];
f($r);
Here it sees that you want a reference and already have a reference so leaves it alone. It may also chain the reference but I doubt this.
I'm working on an application framework written as an object literal and for the sake of simplicity I'd like to do two things:
Have the object available globally
Use the object name (as globally defined) for all references (vs. using this)
So, I've run some tests, done research, and am not finding any good reason NOT to take this approach. My question is - am I missing something? Perf tests actually seem to favor my method and from a logistical level I don't see any issues. Looking at other frameworks I've seen a mix, but I know that the this reference is revered by many programmers.
For reference...
A very minimal example of my approach:
var myobj = {
someVal: 'foo',
init: function(){
// Make myobj available globally
window.myobj = myobj;
// Fire off a method
myobj.doStuff();
},
doStuff: function(){
// Just print out the contents...
console.log(myobj.someVal);
}
}
myobj.init();
Note the references are all to the global, not this.
Like I said, I've seen a mix of this, I guess I just would like to know if this could cause issues in the long-run or if this a much ado about nothing.
As far as limitations go, the first thing that comes to mind is that you could only have one instance of this object. Trying to initialize a new one would wipe out the object.
Another reason for using this rather than a global variable name is that this will point to the correct object even if the name of the variable changes.
If you really want this to be a "create once" global object whose name never changes then this technique isn't technically wrong. But it won't be able to be used in any other situation. It is probably wiser to consider writing code that will be more adaptable if the requirements change (for instance if you use a library that causes a naming conflict with the chosen variable name)
Using this lets you be flexible in renaming the variable and passing it in different contexts without worrying about tracking variable names. It also will make it easy to change if naming conflicts arise.
This is perhaps a dumb question, but I am new to Javascript and desperate for help.
If the Javascript engine will look for global variables outside of a function, then what is the point of passing parameters to it? What do you gain?
I understand that global variables are generally frowned upon, but I still don't understand the purpose of passing variables. Does it have something to do with data encapsulation?
There's a few magic words that are used by programmers to describe different kinds of functions. Here's a few:
Re-entrant
ThreadSafe
Referentially Transparent
Idempotent
Pure
Side-Effects
You can look some of them up if you want a headache. The point is that Computer science and engineering progress has always been about reducing complexity. We have spent quite a lot of time thinking about the best way to write a function to achieve that goal. Hopefully, you can stuff tiny bits of your program into your head at a time, and understand those bits, without having to also understand the overall functioning of the entire program simultaneously, or the detailed implementation of the insides of all the other functions. A function that uses global variables can't do that very well because:
You can't guarantee that the global variables exist
You can't guarantee that the global variables are what you think they are
You can't guarantee that other parts of the program haven't modified those variables in a way you didn't expect.
You can't easily generalise to use the function multiple times on multiple sets of variables.
You can't easily verify that the function works as advertised without first setting up the function's external environment and its dependencies.
If the global variables have changed in a way you didn't expect, it's really hard to track down which part of the program is the culprit. It could be any of 500 different functions that write to that variable!
On the other hand, if you explicitly pass in all the data a function needs to operate, and explicitly return all the results:
If something goes wrong with any of those variables, it's easy to find the source of the problem
It's easier to add code to verify the "domain" of your inputs. Is it really a string? Is it over a certain length, is it under a certain length? Is it a positive number? is it whole, or fractional? All these assumptions that your code needs to operate correctly can be explicit at the start of the function, instead of just crossing your fingers and hoping nothing goes wrong.
It's easier to guess what a particular function will actually do, if its output depends only on its input.
a function's parameters are not dependant on the naming of any external variables.
And other advantages.
if you were only going to use global variables that the functions worked on then you'd always have to know the inner workings of the functions and what your global variable names had to be for them to work.
also, something like Math.abs(n) would be hard to call twice in one line if using global variables.
Functions are reusable components of your code, that executes a particular snippet on the provided variable exhibiting varying behavior.
Encapsulation comes from being Object Oriented. Functions are more for giving structure to your program.
Also, you shouldn't undermine the execution time of a method, if the variable it access exists in the context rather than being global.
If you don't need parameters to be passed to functions, then, you really don't need functions.
Functions are usually (and should be) used to provide code re-use -- use the same function on different variables. If a function accesses global variables, then every time I use it it will perform the same action. If I pass parameters, I can make it perform a different action (based on those different parameters) every time I use it.
One of the main benefits is that it keeps all the information the function needs, nearby. It becomes possible to look at just the function itself and understand what its input is, what it does, and what its output will be. If you are using global variables instead of passing arguments to the function, you’ll have to look all over your code to locate the data on which the function operates.
That’s just one benefit, of many, but an easy one to understand.
Global variables (in any language) can sometimes become stale. If there is a chance of this it is good to declare, initialise and use them locally. You have to be able to trust what you are using.
Similarly, if something/someone can update your global variables then you have to be able to trust the outcome of what will happen whenyou use them.
Global variables are not always needed by everything so why keep them hanging around?
That said, variables global to a namesapce can be useful especially if you are using something like jquery selectors and you want to cache for performance sake.
Is this really a javascript question? I haven't encountered a language that doesn't have some form of global variables yet.