I am learning about object/method chaining in JavaScript and I would like make sure I understand it correctly.
If the following code is an example of JavaScript without object chaining:
var people = helper.getPeople();
var bob = people.find("bob");
var email = bob.getEmail();
and the code below is after applying object chaining:
var email = helper.getPeople().find("bob").getEmail();
Am I to consider object chaining as simply a way to "drill down" into an object, reaching "sub-objects" or properties/methods etc...?
If these two examples of code are supposed to do the same thing, why is a var declaration not required in the object-chained example? I do not understand how the chained statement is the same if no new variables are declared in the process.
I can see the value of saving space and writing the code on one line, and all my research online has shown that this is considered an intuitive, simplified way to write. However, I feel that I am able to read the first example (without object chaining) better. That may just be because I am new to JavaScript, but which example would be considered good coding practice?
Additionally, is the purpose of object chaining merely to reach objects that are not defined in the global scope? A way of reaching local objects?
Thank you for your help!
Am I to consider object chaining as simply a way to "drill down" into an object, reaching "sub-objects" or properties/methods etc...? Is the purpose of object chaining merely to reach objects that are not defined in the global scope? A way of reaching local objects?
It could be. Every of these methods does return another object with methods, that's the secret of chaining. "Drilling down" might be an appropriate wording for some uses, like the one you've shown, where different objects are returned.
However, whether these returned objects are hidden, local "sub-objects", accessible through other means or just created on the fly by that method, or even the original object that returns itself, is dependent on the methods and API design. All options make valid chaining, though.
If these two examples of code are supposed to do the same thing, why is a var declaration not required in the object-chained example? I do not understand how the chained statement is the same if no new variables are declared in the process.
Returning objects that are immediately accessed does not require them to be assigned to any variable. They of course are held in memory somewhere, but don't have an explicit identifier attached to them.
That may just be because I am new to JavaScript, but which example would be considered good coding practice?
Depends. Usually, a good practise is not to create variables if you don't need them. If you are only interested in the email and won't access all the people and bob again, there's no reason to create variables for them.
The readability can be increased by putting each method call on a new line, which is common in JS for chaining:
var email = helper.getPeople()
.find("bob")
.getEmail();
(with various styles of indentation for the subsequent lines)
Related
I've read a number of questions that state it is unwise to add properties to DOM element objects; and they seem to make a great deal of sense. The best suggestion I came across to accomplish the same end was to use a Weak Map with the DOM node reference as the key.
That led me to wonder about adding properties to function objects. Is that "safe" to do or should another object or map be used for this also. I'm referring to functions on the window object. Can the property names I add clash with names in the function object in the future?
That brings up a related matter I've been trying to understand which is that some claim that the window object is so cluttered up that it ought not to be added to and scripts should be modules now. Modules appears to be more isolated than my limited experience with simple namespaces. Is there anything to be gained through using scripts of type module over just declaring another object and making your functions methods of that object? That object would still be added to the window object.
Thank you.
That led me to wonder about adding properties to function objects. Is that "safe" to do or should another object or map be used for this also. I'm referring to functions on the window object. Can the property names I add clash with names in the function object in the future?
It's not safe in that, if you do it, others could do it too. For example:
// Your code
RegExp.description = 'some description for the constructor!';
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(RegExp.description);
});
// Someone else's code
RegExp.description = "someone else's description";
The only consolation is that it's pretty unlikely for such a thing to happen.
Similarly, it's pretty unlikely for some random English word that one library creates for itself on the window collides with another word that another library creates for itself on the window - but it's not impossible. For that reason
That object would still be added to the window object.
can be seen as slightly less than optimal on huge pages, where collisions are a real possibility.
Is there anything to be gained through using scripts of type module over just declaring another object and making your functions methods of that object?
Yes, see above. If all of your code is in module scripts, there should be no need to put any object onto the window, in most cases. In addition to the above, module scripts often make projects easier to manage because they make all dependencies explicit through the use of import statements. They're also very easily integrated into a build process like Webpack - and build processes allow for all sorts of neat things that aren't easily done otherwise.
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.
We have been debating how best to handle objects in our JS app, studying Stoyan Stefanov's book, reading endless SO posts on 'new', 'this', 'prototype', closures etc. (The fact that there are so many, and they have so many competing theories, suggests there is no completely obvious answer).
So let's assume the we don't care about private data. We are content to trust users and developers not to mess around in objects outside the ways we define.
Given this, what (other than it seeming to defy decades of OO style and history) would be wrong with this technique?
// namespace to isolate all PERSON's logic
var PERSON = {};
// return an object which should only ever contain data.
// The Catch: it's 100% public
PERSON.constructor = function (name) {
return {
name: name
}
}
// methods that operate on a Person
// the thing we're operating on gets passed in
PERSON.sayHello = function (person) {
alert (person.name);
}
var p = PERSON.constructor ("Fred");
var q = PERSON.constructor ("Me");
// normally this coded like 'p.sayHello()'
PERSON.sayHello(p);
PERSON.sayHello(q);
Obviously:
There would be nothing to stop someone from mutating 'p' in unholy
ways, or simply the logic of PERSON ending up spread all over the place. (That is true with the canonical 'new' technique as well).
It would be a minor hassle to pass 'p' in to every function that you
wanted to use it.
This is a weird approach.
But are those good enough reasons to dismiss it? On the positive side:
It is efficient, as (arguably) opposed to closures with repetitive function declaration.
It seems very simple and understandable, as opposed to fiddling with
'this' everywhere.
The key point is the foregoing of privacy. I know I will get slammed for this, but, looking for any feedback. Cheers.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it. But it does forgo many advantages inherent in using Javascript's prototype system.
Your object does not know anything about itself other than that it is an object literal. So instanceof will not help you to identify its origin. You'll be stuck using only duck typing.
Your methods are essentially namespaced static functions, where you have to repeat yourself by passing in the object as the first argument. By having a prototyped object, you can take advantage of dynamic dispatch, so that p.sayHello() can do different things for PERSON or ANIMAL depending on the type Javascript knows about. This is a form of polymorphism. Your approach requires you to name (and possibly make a mistake about) the type each time you call a method.
You don't actually need a constructor function, since functions are already objects. Your PERSON variable may as well be the constructor function.
What you've done here is create a module pattern (like a namespace).
Here is another pattern that keeps what you have but supplies the above advantages:
function Person(name)
{
var p = Object.create(Person.prototype);
p.name = name; // or other means of initialization, use of overloaded arguments, etc.
return p;
}
Person.prototype.sayHello = function () { alert (this.name); }
var p = Person("Fred"); // you can omit "new"
var q = Person("Me");
p.sayHello();
q.sayHello();
console.log(p instanceof Person); // true
var people = ["Bob", "Will", "Mary", "Alandra"].map(Person);
// people contains array of Person objects
Yeah, I'm not really understanding why you're trying to dodge the constructor approach or why they even felt a need to layer syntactical sugar over function constructors (Object.create and soon classes) when constructors by themselves are an elegant, flexible, and perfectly reasonable approach to OOP no matter how many lame reasons are given by people like Crockford for not liking them (because people forget to use the new keyword - seriously?). JS is heavily function-driven and its OOP mechanics are no different. It's better to embrace this than hide from it, IMO.
First of all, your points listed under "Obviously"
Hardly even worth mentioning in JavaScript. High degrees of mutability is by-design. We're not afraid of ourselves or other developers in JavaScript. The private vs. public paradigm isn't useful because it protects us from stupidity but rather because it makes it easier to understand the intention behind the other dev's code.
The effort in invoking isn't the problem. The hassle comes later when it's unclear why you've done what you've done there. I don't really see what you're trying to achieve that the core language approaches don't do better for you.
This is JavaScript. It's been weird to all but JS devs for years now. Don't sweat that if you find a better way to do something that works better at solving a problem in a given domain than a more typical solution might. Just make sure you understand the point of the more typical approach before trying to replace it as so many have when coming to JS from other language paradigms. It's easy to do trivial stuff with JS but once you're at the point where you want to get more OOP-driven learn everything you can about how the core language stuff works so you can apply a bit more skepticism to popular opinions out there spread by people who make a side-living making JavaScript out to be scarier and more riddled with deadly booby traps than it really is.
Now your points under "positive side,"
First of all, repetitive function definition was really only something to worry about in heavy looping scenario. If you were regularly producing objects in large enough quantity fast enough for the non-prototyped public method definitions to be a perf problem, you'd probably be running into memory usage issues with non-trivial objects in short order regardless. I speak in the past tense, however, because it's no longer really a relevant issue either way. In modern browsers, functions defined inside other functions are actually typically performance enhancing due to the way modern JIT compilers work. Regardless of what browsers you support, a few funcs defined per object is a non-issue unless you're expecting tens of thousands of objects.
On the question of simple and understandable, it's not to me because I don't see what win you've garnered here. Now instead of having one object to use, I have to use both the object and it's pseudo-constructor together which if I weren't looking at the definition would imply to me the function that you use with a 'new' keyword to build objects. If I were new to your codebase I'd be wasting a lot of time trying to figure out why you did it this way to avoid breaking some other concern I didn't understand.
My questions would be:
Why not just add all the methods in the object literal in the constructor in the first place? There's no performance issue there and there never really has been so the only other possible win is that you want to be able to add new methods to person after you've created new objects with it, but that's what we use prototype for on proper constructors (prototype methods btw are great for memory in older browsers because they are only defined once).
And if you have to keep passing the object in for the methods to know what the properties are, why do you even want objects? Why not just functions that expect simple data structure-type objects with certain properties? It's not really OOP anymore.
But my main point of criticism
You're missing the main point of OOP which is something JavaScript does a better job of not hiding from people than most languages. Consider the following:
function Person(name){
//var name = name; //<--this might be more clear but it would be redundant
this.identifySelf = function(){ alert(name); }
}
var bob = new Person();
bob.identifySelf();
Now, change the name bob identifies with, without overwriting the object or the method, which are both things you'd only do if it were clear you didn't want to work with the object as originally designed and constructed. You of course can't. That makes it crystal clear to anybody who sees this definition that the name is effectively a constant in this case. In a more complex constructor it would establish that the only thing allowed to alter or modify name is the instance itself unless the user added a non-validating setter method which would be silly because that would basically (looking at you Java Enterprise Beans) MURDER THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF OOP.
Clear Division of Responsibility is the Key
Forget the key words they put in every book for a second and think about what the whole point is. Before OOP, everything was just a pile of functions and data structures all those functions acted on. With OOP you mostly have a set of methods bundled with a set of data that only the object itself actually ever changes.
So let's say something's gone wrong with output:
In our strictly procedural pile of functions there's no real limit to the number of hands that could have messed up that data. We might have good error-handling but one function could branch in such a way that the original culprit is hard to track down.
In a proper OOP design where data is typically behind an object gatekeeper I know that only one object can actually make the changes responsible.
Objects exposing all of their data most of the time is really only marginally better than the old procedural approach. All that really does is give you a name to categorize loosely related methods with.
Much Ado About 'this'
I've never understood the undue attention assigned to the 'this' keyword being messy and confusing. It's really not that big of a deal. 'this' identifies the instance you're working with. That's it. If the method isn't called as a property it's not going to know what instance to look for so it defaults to the global object. That was dumb (undefined would have been better), but it not working properly in that scenario should be expected in a language where functions are also portable like data and can be attached to other objects very easily. Use 'this' in a function when:
It's defined and called as a property of an instance.
It's passed as an event handler (which will call it as a member of the thing being listened to).
You're using call or apply methods to call it as a property of some other object temporarily without assigning it as such.
But remember, it's the calling that really matters. Assigning a public method to some var and calling from that var will do the global thing or throw an error in strict mode. Without being referenced as object properties, functions only really care about the scope they were defined in (their closures) and what args you pass them.
Someone mentioned that immediate or self-executing functions have to store the whole stack. Is this true...If so what are the pros and cons of using something like the module pattern (which is based on an immediate function) vs. a plain function?
A function is inherently private, but you can return items that you want to be public, so it can handle privacy.
The main difference I see, is that you don't have global imports or the ability to make sure that the developer ( wait that's me ) uses new with the function ( or it is complicated ).
In general when trying to provide privacy and state when should one use the module pattern and when should one just use a plain function?
A second side question is does a function provide state when used with new?
Any function closure that persists because there are lasting references to variables or functions inside it occupies some amount of memory. In today's computers (even phones), this amount of memory is generally insignificant unless you're somehow repeating it thousands of times. So, using the language features to solve your design problems is generally more important than worrying about this amount of memory.
When you say "the whole stack", the calling stack for a top-level self-executing function is very small. There's really nothing else on the stack except for the one function that's being called.
A function is also an object. So, when it's used with new, it creates a new object that can have state (it's properties) if you assign values to those properties. That's one of the main ways that objects are created in javascript. You can either call a function and examine it's return value or you can use it with new and the function serves as the constructor for a new object. A given function is usually designed to be used in one way or the other, not both.
The module pattern is generally used to control which variables are public and when making them public to put them into a structured namespace that uses very few top-level global variables. It isn't really something you choose instead of self-executing functions because they don't really solve the same problem. You can read more about the module pattern here: http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/module-pattern/
You can read about a number of the options here: http://www.adequatelygood.com/2010/3/JavaScript-Module-Pattern-In-Depth and http://www.klauskomenda.com/code/javascript-programming-patterns/.
It is easier to discuss the pros/cons of a given technique in light of a specific problem that one is trying to solve or a specific design issue rather than a generic discussion of which is better when the things you've asked about are not really solving equivalent issues.
The best reference I know of for protected and private members (which can be hacked into javascript, but are not a core language feature) is this one: http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html. You are making tradeoffs when you use this method instead of the default prototype feature of the language, but you can achieve privacy if you really need it. But, you should know that javascript was not build with private or protected methods in mind so to get that level of privacy, you're using some conventions about how you write your code to get that.
After doing some research on the subject, I've been experimenting a lot with patterns to organize my jQuery code (Rebecca Murphy did a presentation on this at the jQuery Conference for example).
Yesterday I checked the (revealing) module pattern. The outcome looks a bit reminiscent of the YUI syntax I think:
//global namespace MyNameSpace
if(typeof MNS=="undefined"||!MNS){var MNS={};}
//obfuscate module, just serving as a very simple example
MNS.obfuscate = function(){
//function to create an email address from obfuscated '#'
var email = function(){
$('span.email').each(function(){
var emailAddress = $(this).html().replace(' [ # ] ','#');
$(this).html('' + emailAddress + '');
});
};
return {
email: email
};
}();
//using the module when the dom's ready
jQuery(document).ready(function($){
MNS.obfuscate.email();
});
In the end I had several modules. Some naturally included "private members", which in this case means variables and/or functions which were only of importance for other functions within this module, and thus didn't end up in the return statement.
I thought having connected parts of my code (everything which has to do with the search for example) combined in a module makes sense, gives the whole thing structure.
But after writing this, I read an article by John (Resig), where he also writes about the performance of the module pattern:
"Instantiating a function with a bunch of prototype properties is very, very, fast. It completely blows the Module pattern, and similar, out of the water. Thus, if you have a frequently-accessed function (returning an object) that you want people to interact with, then it's to your advantage to have the object properties be in the prototype chain and instantiate it. Here it is, in code:
// Very fast
function User(){}
User.prototype = { /* Lots of properties ... */ };
// Very slow
function User(){
return { /* Lots of properties */ };
}
(John mentions he is not against the module pattern "per se" though - just to let you know :)
Then I wasn't sure anymore if I was going into the right direction with my code. The thing is: I don't really need any private members, and I also don't think I need inheritance for the time being.
All I want for now is a readable/maintainable pattern. I guess this boils down to personal preference to a certain extend, but I don't wanna end up with readable code which has (rather serious) performance issues.
I'm no JavaScript expert and thus even less of an expert when it comes to performance testing. So first, I don't really know in how far the things John mentioned ("frequently-accessed function (returning an object) that you want people to interact with", lots of properties, etc.) apply to my code. The documents my code interacts with are not huge, with 100s or 1000s of elements. So maybe it's not an issue at all.
But one thing which came to my mind is that instead of just having
$('span.email').each(function(){
var emailAddress = $(this).html().replace(' [ # ] ','#');
$(this).html('' + emailAddress + '');
});
(inside the domready function), I create two "extra" functions, obfuscate and email, due to the use of the module pattern. The creation of additional functions costs some time. The question is: will it be measurable in my case?
I'm not sure if a closure is created in my example above (in an interesting post on the jQuery forum I read the following: "There is a philosophical debate on whether an inner function creates a closure if it doesn't reference anything on an outer function's variable object..."), but I did have closures in my real code. And even though I don't think I had any circular references in there, I don't know in how far this could lead to high(er) memory consumption/problems with garbage collection.
I'd really like to hear your input on this, and maybe see some examples of your code. Also, which tools do you prefer to get information on execution time, memory and CPU usage?
I also don't think I need inheritance for the time being
Indeed. This doesn't really apply to using modules as a namespace. It's about class instance analogues.
Objects you create by making every instance from a completely new {name: member} object are less efficient than objects you create using new Class with Class.prototype.name= member. In the prototype case the member value is shared, resulting in lighter-weight instances.
In your example MNS is a singleton, so there is no benefit to be had by sharing members through a prototype.
I'm not sure if a closure is created in my example above
Yes, it is. Even when no variables are defined in the outer function, there is still a LexicalEnvironment and scope object created for the outer function, with this and arguments bound in it. A clever JS engine might be able to optimise it away, since every inner function must hide this and arguments with their own copies, but I'm not sure that any of the current JS implementations actually do that.
The performance difference, in any case, should be undetectable, since you aren't putting anything significant in the arguments. For a simple module pattern I don't think there's any harm.
Also, which tools do you prefer to get information on execution time, memory and CPU usage?
The place to start is simply to execute the code 10000 times in a for-loop and see how much bigger new Date().getTime() has got, executed several times on as many different browsers as you can get hold of.
$(this).html().replace(' [ # ] ','#');
(What is this supposed to do? At the moment it will read the HTML of the span into a new String, replace only the first instance of [ # ] with #, and return a new String value. It won't change the existing content in the DOM.)
How much Javascript do you have? In my experience, on sites with lots of Javascript code on the pages, performance problems generally come from code that actually does things. Generally, problems stem from trying to do too many things, or trying to do some particular thing really badly. An example would be trying to do stuff like bind handlers to elements in table rows (big tables) instead of using something like "live".
My point is that things like how your modules or functions or whatever get organized is almost certainly not going to pose any sort of real performance issue on your pages. What is motivating you to go to all this trouble?