Related
In JavaScript, we have two ways of making a "class" and giving it public functions.
Method 1:
function MyClass() {
var privateInstanceVariable = 'foo';
this.myFunc = function() { alert(privateInstanceVariable ); }
}
Method 2:
function MyClass() { }
MyClass.prototype.myFunc = function() {
alert("I can't use private instance variables. :(");
}
I've read numerous times people saying that using Method 2 is more efficient as all instances share the same copy of the function rather than each getting their own. Defining functions via the prototype has a huge disadvantage though - it makes it impossible to have private instance variables.
Even though, in theory, using Method 1 gives each instance of an object its own copy of the function (and thus uses way more memory, not to mention the time required for allocations) - is that what actually happens in practice? It seems like an optimization web browsers could easily make is to recognize this extremely common pattern, and actually have all instances of the object reference the same copy of functions defined via these "constructor functions". Then it could only give an instance its own copy of the function if it is explicitly changed later on.
Any insight - or, even better, real world experience - about performance differences between the two, would be extremely helpful.
See http://jsperf.com/prototype-vs-this
Declaring your methods via the prototype is faster, but whether or not this is relevant is debatable.
If you have a performance bottleneck in your app it is unlikely to be this, unless you happen to be instantiating 10000+ objects on every step of some arbitrary animation, for example.
If performance is a serious concern, and you'd like to micro-optimise, then I would suggest declaring via prototype. Otherwise, just use the pattern that makes most sense to you.
I'll add that, in JavaScript, there is a convention of prefixing properties that are intended to be seen as private with an underscore (e.g. _process()). Most developers will understand and avoid these properties, unless they're willing to forgo the social contract, but in that case you might as well not cater to them. What I mean to say is that: you probably don't really need true private variables...
In the new version of Chrome, this.method is about 20% faster than prototype.method, but creating new object is still slower.
If you can reuse the object instead of always creating an new one, this can be 50% - 90% faster than creating new objects. Plus the benefit of no garbage collection, which is huge:
http://jsperf.com/prototype-vs-this/59
It only makes a difference when you're creating lots of instances. Otherwise, the performance of calling the member function is exactly the same in both cases.
I've created a test case on jsperf to demonstrate this:
http://jsperf.com/prototype-vs-this/10
You might not have considered this, but putting the method directly on the object is actually better in one way:
Method invocations are very slightly faster (jsperf) since the prototype chain does not have to be consulted to resolve the method.
However, the speed difference is almost negligible. On top of that, putting a method on a prototype is better in two more impactful ways:
Faster to create instances (jsperf)
Uses less memory
Like James said, this difference can be important if you are instantiating thousands of instances of a class.
That said, I can certainly imagine a JavaScript engine that recognizes that the function you are attaching to each object does not change across instances and thus only keeps one copy of the function in memory, with all instance methods pointing to the shared function. In fact, it seems that Firefox is doing some special optimization like this but Chrome is not.
ASIDE:
You are right that it is impossible to access private instance variables from inside methods on prototypes. So I guess the question you must ask yourself is do you value being able to make instance variables truly private over utilizing inheritance and prototyping? I personally think that making variables truly private is not that important and would just use the underscore prefix (e.g., "this._myVar") to signify that although the variable is public, it should be considered to be private. That said, in ES6, there is apparently a way to have the both of both worlds!
You may use this approach and it will allow you to use prototype and access instance variables.
var Person = (function () {
function Person(age, name) {
this.age = age;
this.name = name;
}
Person.prototype.showDetails = function () {
alert('Age: ' + this.age + ' Name: ' + this.name);
};
return Person; // This is not referencing `var Person` but the Person function
}()); // See Note1 below
Note1:
The parenthesis will call the function (self invoking function) and assign the result to the var Person.
Usage
var p1 = new Person(40, 'George');
var p2 = new Person(55, 'Jerry');
p1.showDetails();
p2.showDetails();
In short, use method 2 for creating properties/methods that all instances will share. Those will be "global" and any change to it will be reflected across all instances. Use method 1 for creating instance specific properties/methods.
I wish I had a better reference but for now take a look at this. You can see how I used both methods in the same project for different purposes.
Hope this helps. :)
This answer should be considered an expansion of the rest of the answers filling in missing points. Both personal experience and benchmarks are incorporated.
As far as my experience goes, I use constructors to literally construct my objects religiously, whether methods are private or not. The main reason being that when I started that was the easiest immediate approach to me so it's not a special preference. It might have been as simple as that I like visible encapsulation and prototypes are a bit disembodied. My private methods will be assigned as variables in the scope as well. Although this is my habit and keeps things nicely self contained, it's not always the best habit and I do sometimes hit walls. Apart from wacky scenarios with highly dynamic self assembling according to configuration objects and code layout it tends to be the weaker approach in my opinion particularly if performance is a concern. Knowing that the internals are private is useful but you can achieve that via other means with the right discipline. Unless performance is a serious consideration, use whatever works best otherwise for the task at hand.
Using prototype inheritance and a convention to mark items as private does make debugging easier as you can then traverse the object graph easily from the console or debugger. On the other hand, such a convention makes obfuscation somewhat harder and makes it easier for others to bolt on their own scripts onto your site. This is one of the reasons the private scope approach gained popularity. It's not true security but instead adds resistance. Unfortunately a lot of people do still think it's a genuinely way to program secure JavaScript. Since debuggers have gotten really good, code obfuscation takes its place. If you're looking for security flaws where too much is on the client, it's a design pattern your might want to look out for.
A convention allows you to have protected properties with little fuss. That can be a blessing and a curse. It does ease some inheritance issues as it is less restrictive. You still do have the risk of collision or increased cognitive load in considering where else a property might be accessed. Self assembling objects let you do some strange things where you can get around a number of inheritance problems but they can be unconventional. My modules tend to have a rich inner structure where things don't get pulled out until the functionality is needed elsewhere (shared) or exposed unless needed externally. The constructor pattern tends to lead to creating self contained sophisticated modules more so than simply piecemeal objects. If you want that then it's fine. Otherwise if you want a more traditional OOP structure and layout then I would probably suggest regulating access by convention. In my usage scenarios complex OOP isn't often justified and modules do the trick.
All of the tests here are minimal. In real world usage it is likely that modules will be more complex making the hit a lot greater than tests here will indicate. It's quite common to have a private variable with multiple methods working on it and each of those methods will add more overhead on initialisation that you wont get with prototype inheritance. In most cases is doesn't matter because only a few instances of such objects float around although cumulatively it might add up.
There is an assumption that prototype methods are slower to call because of prototype lookup. It's not an unfair assumption, I made the same myself until I tested it. In reality it's complex and some tests suggest that aspect is trivial. Between, prototype.m = f, this.m = f and this.m = function... the latter performs significantly better than the first two which perform around the same. If the prototype lookup alone were a significant issue then the last two functions instead would out perform the first significantly. Instead something else strange is going on at least where Canary is concerned. It's possible functions are optimised according to what they are members of. A multitude of performance considerations come into play. You also have differences for parameter access and variable access.
Memory Capacity. It's not well discussed here. An assumption you can make up front that's likely to be true is that prototype inheritance will usually be far more memory efficient and according to my tests it is in general. When you build up your object in your constructor you can assume that each object will probably have its own instance of each function rather than shared, a larger property map for its own personal properties and likely some overhead to keep the constructor scope open as well. Functions that operate on the private scope are extremely and disproportionately demanding of memory. I find that in a lot of scenarios the proportionate difference in memory will be much more significant than the proportionate difference in CPU cycles.
Memory Graph. You also can jam up the engine making GC more expensive. Profilers do tend to show time spent in GC these days. It's not only a problem when it comes to allocating and freeing more. You'll also create a larger object graph to traverse and things like that so the GC consumes more cycles. If you create a million objects and then hardly touch them, depending on the engine it might turn out to have more of an ambient performance impact than you expected. I have proven that this does at least make the gc run for longer when objects are disposed of. That is there tends to be a correlation with memory used and the time it takes to GC. However there are cases where the time is the same regardless of the memory. This indicates that the graph makeup (layers of indirection, item count, etc) has more impact. That's not something that is always easy to predict.
Not many people use chained prototypes extensively, myself included I have to admit. Prototype chains can be expensive in theory. Someone will but I've not measured the cost. If you instead build your objects entirely in the constructor and then have a chain of inheritance as each constructor calls a parent constructor upon itself, in theory method access should be much faster. On the other hand you can accomplish the equivalent if it matters (such as flatten the prototypes down the ancestor chain) and you don't mind breaking things like hasOwnProperty, perhaps instanceof, etc if you really need it. In either case things start to get complex once you down this road when it comes to performance hacks. You'll probably end up doing things you shouldn't be doing.
Many people don't directly use either approach you've presented. Instead they make their own things using anonymous objects allowing method sharing any which way (mixins for example). There are a number of frameworks as well that implement their own strategies for organising modules and objects. These are heavily convention based custom approaches. For most people and for you your first challenge should be organisation rather than performance. This is often complicated in that Javascript gives many ways of achieving things versus languages or platforms with more explicit OOP/namespace/module support. When it comes to performance I would say instead to avoid major pitfalls first and foremost.
There's a new Symbol type that's supposed to work for private variables and methods. There are a number of ways to use this and it raises a host of questions related to performance and access. In my tests the performance of Symbols wasn't great compared to everything else but I never tested them thoroughly.
Disclaimers:
There are lots of discussions about performance and there isn't always a permanently correct answer for this as usage scenarios and engines change. Always profile but also always measure in more than one way as profiles aren't always accurate or reliable. Avoid significant effort into optimisation unless there's definitely a demonstrable problem.
It's probably better instead to include performance checks for sensitive areas in automated testing and to run when browsers update.
Remember sometimes battery life matters as well as perceptible performance. The slowest solution might turn out faster after running an optimising compiler on it (IE, a compiler might have a better idea of when restricted scope variables are accessed than properties marked as private by convention). Consider backend such as node.js. This can require better latency and throughput than you would often find on the browser. Most people wont need to worry about these things with something like validation for a registration form but the number of diverse scenarios where such things might matter is growing.
You have to be careful with memory allocation tracking tools in to persist the result. In some cases where I didn't return and persist the data it was optimised out entirely or the sample rate was not sufficient between instantiated/unreferenced, leaving me scratching my head as to how an array initialised and filled to a million registered as 3.4KiB in the allocation profile.
In the real world in most cases the only way to really optimise an application is to write it in the first place so you can measure it. There are dozens to hundreds of factors that can come into play if not thousands in any given scenario. Engines also do things that can lead to asymmetric or non-linear performance characteristics. If you define functions in a constructor, they might be arrow functions or traditional, each behaves differently in certain situations and I have no idea about the other function types. Classes also don't behave the same in terms as performance for prototyped constructors that should be equivalent. You need to be really careful with benchmarks as well. Prototyped classes can have deferred initialisation in various ways, especially if your prototyped your properties as well (advice, don't). This means that you can understate initialisation cost and overstate access/property mutation cost. I have also seen indications of progressive optimisation. In these cases I have filled a large array with instances of objects that are identical and as the number of instances increase the objects appear to be incrementally optimised for memory up to a point where the remainder is the same. It is also possible that those optimisations can also impact CPU performance significantly. These things are heavily dependent not merely on the code you write but what happens in runtime such as number of objects, variance between objects, etc.
I am working on an SE userscript that I've written in Vanilla JS. It works mostly through DOM manipulation, so I frequently use document.getElementById and document.querySelector and other similar functions. These functions work well, but they are long and, even though I have tab completion, I want to shorten the time it takes to write these out. I have thought of using another function with a shorter name to replace these longer functions. To replace document.getElementById, I would have a function name byId that would take in an Id string, id, as a parameter, then return the value of calling document.getElementById on id. The function would look like
function byId(id) {
return document.getElementById(id);
}
which could then be called simply by writing
byId('id-name');
I have seen a similar SO question about debugging someone's attempt to do this, but my attempt works. I am just wondering about how this practice is looked upon.
So, should this practice be used? Could this worsen performance or even break the functionality of a program? Is there anything that could be helpful about it (besides shortening the function name)?
It's certainly less clear. When a programmer sees document.getElementById they will know what that means. When a programmer sees byId they will have no idea what action is being done (there's no verb) or what sort of Id might possibly be being referred to. They will then look up the definition and see document.getElementById, which defeats any purported readability gain from wrapping it.
Your usage does not have significant performance drawbacks. It's also not error prone, unless you're referencing other scripts that can potentially also define a byId() method in the global scope. The only advantage I see, other than easy of use for yourself, is reducing the JavaScript size the client browser needs to download if there is heavy usage of document.getElementById().
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.
I find myself needing:
var self = this;
a lot within my javascript 'classes'. Although this is commonly done, it feels a bit wrong.
What I'm hoping to find in this question is a better way to deal with this, or a something to convince me this is quite alright.
Is this the standard way to keep the correct bindings around? Should I standardize on using 'self' everywhere, unless i explicitly need 'this'.
edit: I know exactly why I need this, I'm just wondering if it's considered a bit evil and why. I'm aware there's also the 'apply' built-in javascript function to explicitly define scope when calling a method. Is it better?
As others have said: This "extra variable" is (at some level) the only way to get about the fact that this is a special expression and thus, being not a variable, is not bound in an execution context/closure.
However, what I think you are asking (or what I really want to answer) is:
Should one put var self = this at the top of every method/constructor?
Summary
While I tried this once, and had the same question, I no longer use this approach. Now I reserve the construct for when I need access in a closure. To me it adds a little "hey, this is what I really want!" semantic to my code:
this -> this and self -> this (but really that) in a closure
Questions ala carte:
...Although this is commonly done, it feels a bit wrong. What I'm hoping to find in this question is a better way to deal with this, or a something to convince me this is quite alright.
Do what feels right to you. Don't be afraid to try one method and switch back later (but please try to remain consistent within each project :-)
Is this the standard way to keep the correct bindings around? Should I standardize on using 'self' everywhere, unless i explicitly need 'this'.
"self" is the most common name used. As per above, I prefer the opposite approach -- to use this except when a closure binding is required.
..if it's considered a bit evil and why.
Evil is a silly subjective term (albeit fun sometimes). I've never said it was evil, just why I do not follow the approach. Some people tell me I am "evil" for not using semi-colons. I tell them they should actually come up with good arguments and/or learn JavaScript better :-)
I'm aware there's also the 'apply' built-in javascript function to explicitly define scope when calling a method. Is it better?
The problem with apply/call is that you must use them at point of the function invocation. It won't help if someone else calls one of your methods as the this may already be off. It's most useful for doing things like the jQuery-style callbacks where the this is the element/item of the callback, etc.
As an aside...
I like to avoid "needing self" on members and thus generally promote all member functions to properties where the receiver (this) just "flows through", which is normally "as expected".
The "private" methods in my code begin with a "_" and if the user calls them, that's on them. This also works better (is required, really) when using the prototype approach to object creation. However, Douglas Crockford disagrees with this "private" approach of mine and there are some cases where the look-up chain may thwart you by injecting an unexpected receiver:
Using the "self" bound in the constructor also locks the upper limit of the look-up chain for a method (it is no longer polymorphic upward!) which may or may not be correct. I think it's normally incorrect.
Happy coding.
Yes, this is the standard way.
Function.apply() and Function.call() can help, but not always.
Consider the following
function foo()
{
var self = this;
this.name = 'foo';
setTimeout( function()
{
alert( "Hi from " + self.name );
}, 1000 );
}
new foo();
If you wanted to do this but avoid the usage of a variable like self and use call() or apply() instead... well... you look at it and start to try, but soon realize you just can't. setTimeout() is responsible for the invocation of the lambda, making it impossible for you to leverage these alternate invocation styles. You'd still end up creating some intermediary variable to hold a reference to the object.
Is this the standard way to keep the correct bindings around?
There is no standard, where JavaScript and class/instance systems are concerned. You will have to choose what kind of object model you prefer. Here's another link to a backgrounder; conclusion: there is no conlusion.
Typically keeping a copy var self= this;(*) in a closure goes hand-in-hand with an object model built around closures with per-instance copies of each method. That's a valid way of doing things; a bit less efficient, but also typically a bit less work than the alternative, an object model built around prototyping, using this, apply() and ECMAScript Fifth Edition's bind() to get bound methods.
What could be counted more as ‘evil’ is when you have a mish-mash of both styles in the same code. Unfortunately a lot of common JS code does this (because let's face it, no-one really understands JavaScript's bizarre native object model).
(*: I typically use that instead of self; you can use any variable name you like, but self already has an somewhat obscure and completely pointless meaning as a window member that points to the window itself.)
Just came across this question because my coworkers addicted to self/that variables and I wanted to understand why...
I think there is a better way to deal with this in nowdays:
function () {}.bind(this); // native
_.bind(function () {}, this); // lodash
$.proxy(function () {}, this); // jquery
In javascript and other languages with closures, this can be a very important thing to do. The object that this refers to in a method can actually change. Once you set your self variable equal to this, then self will reliably remain a reference to the object in question, even if this later points to something different.
This is an important difference in javascript compared to many other languages we work in. I'm coming from .Net, so this type of thing seemed strange to me at first too.
Edit:
Ah, okay, you know all that. (maybe still helpful for someone else.) I'll add that Apply (and Call) are more for using from "the outside", giving to a function you're calling a specific scope that you already know about. Once you're inside a function and you're about to cascade further down into closures, the technique:
var self = this;
is the more appropriate way (easy and clear) way to anchor your current scope.
It's 6 years later, and I have some things to add myself:
bind() is now common enough to be used everywhere. I use it often as an alternative. Sometimes it feels clearer. I still on occasion use var self = this;. though.
Arrow functions slowly are becoming viable for usage. The syntax is a bit shorter which is nice, but I think the killer feature really is that by default they always bind to the parent scope.
This:
var self = this;
var foo = function(a) {
return self.b + a;
};
Can now be written as :
var foo = a => this.b + a;
This is the 'most optimistic' usage of arrow functions, but it's pretty sweet.
And just to concluse, there's nothing wrong with:
var self = this;
Most likely this is done as a way to maintain a reference to this when the scope is about to change (in the case of a closure). I don't know that I'd consider it a bad practice or pattern in and of itself, no. You see similar things a lot with libraries like jQuery and a great deal with working with AJAX.
I think there's an argument to be made for always including var self = this in every method: human factors.
It's needed often enough that you wind up having a mishmash of methods accessing this and others using self for the same purpose. If you move code from one to the other, suddenly you get a bunch of errors.
At the same time, I catch myself absent-mindedly writing self.foo out of habit when I haven't needed or added a var self = this. So I think it could make sense to just make a habit of always including it, needed or not.
The only trouble is... this, self, or that are all an ugly pox on your code and I kind of hate them all. So I think it is better to avoid using delegated methods where possible so that you can avoid using this, that or self the vast majority of the time, and use .bind(this) when you might otherwise resort to self/that. It's very rare that using delegates on the prototype is actually going to save you any substantial amount of memory anyway.
A nice side effect of that approach is that you don't have to prefix all your private variables with _, as they will be truly private and the public properties will be called out by the leading this., making your code more readable.
As bobince said, var that = this is better because it doesn't shadow window.self. self = this sounds less awkward to me, but sometimes you get confusing error messages like property myMethod not found on global, because you forgot the self = this line.
I just want to point out that 'self' is equivalent to 'window', try outputting window === self to the console. You should use this pattern with 'that' or something similar as a variable name, avoid using 'self' since it is already in use by the browser (one mistake and you will create yourself a global variable).
Even though it sounds weird, it is better to use 'that' for its name because other developers will immediately know what you were trying to accomplish in your code, avoid using nonstandard variable names.
I believe that this is an important note, but it was only mentioned in one comment, so I wanted to make it more visible.
This was useful at some point in time, using closure to pass scope, but if you're looking for the standard way of developing and handle the scope properly, use :
myFunction.bind(this)
or like some people suggest the arrow function.
On thing to keep in mind : having a variable replace this is not straight forward and can lead to confusion. If it's needed, it's the sign that the code is not structured optimally.
I like it. It is "self"-explanatory. Douglas Crockford has some things to say about this. He states that using "that" is convention. You can see Crockford for free if you scoot over to yui-theater and watch hes videos about Javascript.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I'm finding myself coding a big project in Javascript. I remember the last one was quite an adventure because hacky JS can quickly becomes unreadable and I want this code to be clean.
Well, I'm using objects to construct a lib, but there are several ways to define things in JS, implying important consequences in the scope, the memory management, the name space, etc. E.G :
using var or not;
defining things in the file, or in a (function(){...})(), jquery style;
using this, or not;
using function myname() or myname = function();
defining methods in the body of the object or using "prototype";
etc.
So what are really the best practices when coding in OO in JS ?
Academic explanations really expected here. Link to books warmly welcome, as long as they deal with quality and robustness.
EDIT :
Got some readings, but I'm still very interested in answers to the questions above and any best practices.
Using `var` or not
You should introduce any variable with the var statement, otherwise it gets to the global scope.
It's worth mentioning that in strict mode ("use strict";) undeclared variable assignments throws ReferenceError.
At present JavaScript does not have a block scope. The Crockford school teaches you to put var statements at the beginning of the function body, while Dojo's Style Guide reads that all variables should be declared in the smallest scope possible. (The let statement and definition introduced in JavaScript 1.7 is not part of the ECMAScript standard.)
It is good practice to bind regularly-used objects' properties to local variables as it is faster than looking up the whole scope chain. (See Optimizing JavaScript for extreme performance and low memory consumption.)
Defining things in the file, or in a `(function(){...})()`
If you don't need to reach your objects outside your code, you can wrap your whole code in a function expression—-it's called the module pattern. It has performance advantages, and also allows your code to be minified and obscured at a high level. You can also ensure it won't pollute the global namespace. Wrapping Functions in JavaScript also allows you to add aspect-oriented behaviour. Ben Cherry has an in-depth article on module pattern.
Using `this` or not
If you use pseudo-classical inheritance in JavaScript, you can hardly avoid using this. It's a matter of taste which inheritance pattern you use. For other cases, check Peter Michaux's article on JavaScript Widgets Without "this".
Using `function myname()` or `myname = function();`
function myname() is a function declaration and myname = function(); is a function expression assigned to variable myname. The latter form indicates that functions are first-class objects, and you can do anything with them, as with a variable. The only difference between them is that all function declarations are hoisted to the top of the scope, which may matter in certain cases. Otherwise they are equal. function foo() is a shorthand form. Further details on hoisting can be found in the JavaScript Scoping and Hoisting article.
Defining methods in the body of the object or using "prototype"
It's up to you. JavaScript has four object-creation patterns: pseudo-classical, prototypical, functional, and parts (Crockford, 2008). Each has its pros and cons, see Crockford in his video talks or get his book The Good Parts as Anon already suggested.
Frameworks
I suggest you pick up some JavaScript frameworks, study their conventions and style, and find those practices and patterns that best fit you. For instance, the Dojo Toolkit provides a robust framework to write object-oriented JavaScript code which even supports multiple inheritance.
Patterns
Lastly, there is a blog dedicated to explore common JavaScript patterns and anti-patterns. Also check out the question Are there any coding standards for JavaScript? in Stack Overflow.
I am going to write down some stuffs that I read or put in application since I asked this question. So people reading it won't get frustrated, as most of the answers are RTMF's in disguise (even if I must admit, suggested books ARE good).
Var usage
Any variable is supposed to be already declared at the higher scope in JS. So when ever you want a new variable, declare it to avoid bad surprises like manipulating a global var without noticing it. Therefore, always use the var keyword.
In an object make, var the variable private. If you want to just declare a public variable, use this.my_var = my_value to do so.
Declaring methods
In JS, they are numerous way of declaring methods. For an OO programmer, the most natural and yet efficient way is to use the following syntax:
Inside the object body
this.methodName = function(param) {
/* bla */
};
There is a drawback: inner functions won't be able to access "this" because of the funny JS scope. Douglas Crockford recommends to bypass this limitation using a conventional local variable named "that". So it becomes
function MyObject() {
var that = this;
this.myMethod = function() {
jQuery.doSomethingCrazy(that.callbackMethod);
};
};
Do not rely on automatic end of line
JS tries to automatically add ; at the end of the line if you forget it. Don't rely on this behavior, as you'll get errors that are a mess to debug.
First ought to read about the prototype-based programming so you know what kind of beast you're dealing with and then take a look at JavaScript style guide at MDC and JavaScript page at MDC. I also find best to force the code quality with a tool, ie. JavaScript Lint or other variants.
Best practices with OO sounds more like you want to find patterns than concentrate on code quality, so look at Google search: javascript patterns and jQuery patterns.
Speed up your JavaScript
You might want to check out Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja by John Resig (jQuery). "This book is intended to take an intermediate JavaScript developer and give him the knowledge he needs to create a cross-browser JavaScript library, from the ground, up."
The draft is available through the publisher:
http://www.manning.com/resig/
Douglas Crockford also has some nice JavaScript articles on his homepage:
http://www.crockford.com/
I often feel like the only guy here who uses MooTools for my javascript.
It stands for My Object Oriented Tools, mootools.
I really like their take on OOP in javascript. You can use their class implementation along with jquery too, so you don't have to ditch jquery (though mootools does it all just as well).
Anyway, give the first link a good read and see what you think, the second link is to the mootools docs.
MooTools & Inheritance
MooTools Classes
Here's a book that covers most of the bases:
Object Oriented Javascript for high quality applicatons and libraries