I am curious as what else the new keyword does in the background apart from changing what the this scope refers too.
For example if we compare using the new keyword to make a function set properties and methods on an object to just making a function return a new object, is there anything extra that the new object does?
And which is preferred if I don't wish to create multiple objects from the function constructor
var foo2 = function () {
var temp = "test";
return {
getLol: function () {
return temp;
},
setLol: function(value) {
temp = value;
}
};
}();
var foo = new function () {
var temp = "test";
this.getLol = function () {
return temp;
}
this.setLol = function(value) {
temp = value;
}
}();
The firebug profiler tells me using the new keyword is slightly faster (2ms instead of 3ms), on large objects is new still significantly faster?
[Edit]
Another matter is on really large object constructors is having a return at the bottom of the function (It will have a large amount of local functions) or having a few this.bar = ... at the top of the function more readable? What is considered a good convention?
var MAIN = newfunction() {
this.bar = ...
// Lots of code
}();
var MAIN2 = function() {
// Lots of code
return {
bar: ...
}
}();
Quoting Douglas Crockford from the Good Parts book (page 47), to answer the title of this question:
If the new operator were a method instead of an operator, it could be implemented like this:
Function.method('new', function () {
// Create a new object that inherits from the
// constructor's prototype.
var that = Object.create(this.prototype);
// Invoke the constructor, binding -this- to
// the new object.
var other = this.apply(that, arguments);
// If its return value isn't an object,
// substitute the new object.
return (typeof other === 'object' && other) || that;
});
The Function.method method is implemented as follows. This adds an instance method to a class (Source):
Function.prototype.method = function (name, func) {
this.prototype[name] = func;
return this;
};
Further reading:
Mozilla Dev Center: Object.create()
Mozilla Dev Center: Function.apply()
Douglas Crockford: Classical Inheritance in JavaScript
Read the spec. Sections 11.2.2 and 13.2.2 are relevant and aren't too tricky to understand (note that the latter two links are to non-official HTML-ified version of the spec).
In summary, if you have a function f that returns an object, the only observable difference that calling it with new will make is that the this value will be different, and that calling it with new may be slower, since it involves additional steps of creating an object and assigning it a few properties.
Javascript 1.9.3 / ECMAScript 5 introduces Object.create, which Douglas Crockford amongst others has been advocating for a long time. How do I replace new in the code below with Object.create?
var UserA = function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
}
UserA.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
var bob = new UserA('bob');
bob.sayHello();
(Assume MY_GLOBAL.nextId exists).
The best I can come up with is:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB);
bob.init('Bob');
bob.sayHello();
There doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I think I'm not getting it. I'm probably being too neo-classical. How should I use Object.create to create user 'bob'?
With only one level of inheritance, your example may not let you see the real benefits of Object.create.
This methods allows you to easily implement differential inheritance, where objects can directly inherit from other objects.
On your userB example, I don't think that your init method should be public or even exist, if you call again this method on an existing object instance, the id and name properties will change.
Object.create lets you initialize object properties using its second argument, e.g.:
var userB = {
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB, {
'id' : {
value: MY_GLOBAL.nextId(),
enumerable:true // writable:false, configurable(deletable):false by default
},
'name': {
value: 'Bob',
enumerable: true
}
});
As you can see, the properties can be initialized on the second argument of Object.create, with an object literal using a syntax similar to the used by the Object.defineProperties and Object.defineProperty methods.
It lets you set the property attributes (enumerable, writable, or configurable), which can be really useful.
There is really no advantage in using Object.create(...) over new object.
Those advocating this method generally state rather ambiguous advantages: "scalability", or "more natural to JavaScript" etc.
However, I have yet to see a concrete example that shows that Object.create has any advantages over using new. On the contrary there are known problems with it. Sam Elsamman describes what happens when there are nested objects and Object.create(...) is used:
var Animal = {
traits: {},
}
var lion = Object.create(Animal);
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = Object.create(Animal);
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // shows 2!!!
This occurs because Object.create(...) advocates a practice where data is used to create new objects; here the Animal datum becomes part of the prototype of lion and bird, and causes problems as it is shared. When using new the prototypal inheritance is explicit:
function Animal() {
this.traits = {};
}
function Lion() { }
Lion.prototype = new Animal();
function Bird() { }
Bird.prototype = new Animal();
var lion = new Lion();
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = new Bird();
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // now shows 4
Regarding, the optional property attributes that are passed into Object.create(...), these can be added using Object.defineProperties(...).
Object.create is not yet standard on several browsers, for example IE8, Opera v11.5, Konq 4.3 do not have it. You can use Douglas Crockford's version of Object.create for those browsers but this doesn't include the second 'initialisation object' parameter used in CMS's answer.
For cross browser code one way to get object initialisation in the meantime is to customise Crockford's Object.create. Here is one method:-
Object.build = function(o) {
var initArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1)
function F() {
if((typeof o.init === 'function') && initArgs.length) {
o.init.apply(this,initArgs)
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This maintains Crockford prototypal inheritance, and also checks for any init method in the object, then runs it with your parameter(s), like say new man('John','Smith'). Your code then becomes:-
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}} // For example
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.build(userB, 'Bob'); // Different from your code
bob.sayHello();
So bob inherits the sayHello method and now has own properties id=1 and name='Bob'. These properties are both writable and enumerable of course. This is also a much simpler way to initialise than for ECMA Object.create especially if you aren't concerned about the writable, enumerable and configurable attributes.
For initialisation without an init method the following Crockford mod could be used:-
Object.gen = function(o) {
var makeArgs = arguments
function F() {
var prop, i=1, arg, val
for(prop in o) {
if(!o.hasOwnProperty(prop)) continue
val = o[prop]
arg = makeArgs[i++]
if(typeof arg === 'undefined') break
this[prop] = arg
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This fills the userB own properties, in the order they are defined, using the Object.gen parameters from left to right after the userB parameter. It uses the for(prop in o) loop so, by ECMA standards, the order of property enumeration cannot be guaranteed the same as the order of property definition. However, several code examples tested on (4) major browsers show they are the same, provided the hasOwnProperty filter is used, and sometimes even if not.
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}}; // For example
var userB = {
name: null,
id: null,
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
}
var bob = Object.gen(userB, 'Bob', MY_GLOBAL.nextId());
Somewhat simpler I would say than Object.build since userB does not need an init method. Also userB is not specifically a constructor but looks like a normal singleton object. So with this method you can construct and initialise from normal plain objects.
TL;DR:
new Computer() will invoke the constructor function Computer(){} for one time, while Object.create(Computer.prototype) won't.
All the advantages are based on this point.
Sidenote about performance: Constructor invoking like new Computer() is heavily optimized by the engine, so it may be even faster than Object.create.
You could make the init method return this, and then chain the calls together, like this:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
return this;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB).init('Bob');
Another possible usage of Object.create is to clone immutable objects in a cheap and effective way.
var anObj = {
a: "test",
b: "jest"
};
var bObj = Object.create(anObj);
bObj.b = "gone"; // replace an existing (by masking prototype)
bObj.c = "brand"; // add a new to demonstrate it is actually a new obj
// now bObj is {a: test, b: gone, c: brand}
Notes: The above snippet creates a clone of an source object (aka not a reference, as in cObj = aObj). It benefits over the copy-properties method (see 1), in that it does not copy object member properties. Rather it creates another -destination- object with it's prototype set on the source object. Moreover when properties are modified on the dest object, they are created "on the fly", masking the prototype's (src's) properties.This constitutes a fast an effective way of cloning immutable objects.
The caveat here is that this applies to source objects that should not be modified after creation (immutable). If the source object is modified after creation, all the clone's unmasked properties will be modified, too.
Fiddle here(http://jsfiddle.net/y5b5q/1/) (needs Object.create capable browser).
I think the main point in question - is to understand difference between new and Object.create approaches. Accordingly to this answer and to this video new keyword does next things:
Creates new object.
Links new object to constructor function (prototype).
Makes this variable point to the new object.
Executes constructor function using the new object and implicit perform return this;
Assigns constructor function name to new object's property constructor.
Object.create performs only 1st and 2nd steps!!!
In code example provided in question it isn't big deal, but in next example it is:
var onlineUsers = [];
function SiteMember(name) {
this.name = name;
onlineUsers.push(name);
}
SiteMember.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
function Guest(name) {
SiteMember.call(this, name);
}
Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
var g = new Guest('James');
console.log(onlineUsers);
As side effect result will be:
[ undefined, 'James' ]
because of Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
But we don't need to execute parent constructor method, we need only make method getName to be available in Guest.
Hence we have to use Object.create.
If replace Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
to Guest.prototype = Object.create(SiteMember.prototype); result be:
[ 'James' ]
Sometimes you cannot create an object with NEW but are still able to invoke the CREATE method.
For example: if you want to define a Custom Element it must derive from HTMLElement.
proto = new HTMLElement //fail :(
proto = Object.create( HTMLElement.prototype ) //OK :)
document.registerElement( "custom-element", { prototype: proto } )
The advantage is that Object.create is typically slower than new on most browsers
In this jsperf example, in a Chromium, browser new is 30 times as fast as Object.create(obj) although both are pretty fast. This is all pretty strange because new does more things (like invoking a constructor) where Object.create should be just creating a new Object with the passed in object as a prototype (secret link in Crockford-speak)
Perhaps the browsers have not caught up in making Object.create more efficient (perhaps they are basing it on new under the covers ... even in native code)
Summary:
Object.create() is a Javascript function which takes 2 arguments and returns a new object.
The first argument is an object which will be the prototype of the newly created object
The second argument is an object which will be the properties of the newly created object
Example:
const proto = {
talk : () => console.log('hi')
}
const props = {
age: {
writable: true,
configurable: true,
value: 26
}
}
let Person = Object.create(proto, props)
console.log(Person.age);
Person.talk();
Practical applications:
The main advantage of creating an object in this manner is that the prototype can be explicitly defined. When using an object literal, or the new keyword you have no control over this (however, you can overwrite them of course).
If we want to have a prototype The new keyword invokes a constructor function. With Object.create() there is no need for invoking or even declaring a constructor function.
It can Basically be a helpful tool when you want create objects in a very dynamic manner. We can make an object factory function which creates objects with different prototypes depending on the arguments received.
You have to make a custom Object.create() function. One that addresses Crockfords concerns and also calls your init function.
This will work:
var userBPrototype = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
function UserB(name) {
function F() {};
F.prototype = userBPrototype;
var f = new F;
f.init(name);
return f;
}
var bob = UserB('bob');
bob.sayHello();
Here UserB is like Object.create, but adjusted for our needs.
If you want, you can also call:
var bob = new UserB('bob');
While Douglas Crockford used to be a zealous advocate of Object.create() and he is basically the reason why this construct actually is in javascript, he no longer has this opinion.
He stopped using Object.create, because he stopped using this keyword altogether as it causes too much trouble. For example, if you are not careful it can easily point to the global object, which can have really bad consequences. And he claims that without using this Object.create does not make sense anymore.
You can check this video from 2014 where he talks at Nordic.js:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGEjv3Tqo0
new and Object.create serve different purposes. new is intended to create a new instance of an object type. Object.create is intended to simply create a new object and set its prototype. Why is this useful? To implement inheritance without accessing the __proto__ property. An object instance's prototype referred to as [[Prototype]] is an internal property of the virtual machine and is not intended to be directly accessed. The only reason it is actually possible to directly access [[Prototype]] as the __proto__ property is because it has always been a de-facto standard of every major virtual machine's implementation of ECMAScript, and at this point removing it would break a lot of existing code.
In response to the answer above by 7ochem, objects should absolutely never have their prototype set to the result of a new statement, not only because there's no point calling the same prototype constructor multiple times but also because two instances of the same class can end up with different behavior if one's prototype is modified after being created. Both examples are simply bad code as a result of misunderstanding and breaking the intended behavior of the prototype inheritance chain.
Instead of accessing __proto__, an instance's prototype should be written to when an it is created with Object.create or afterward with Object.setPrototypeOf, and read with Object.getPrototypeOf or Object.isPrototypeOf.
Also, as the Mozilla documentation of Object.setPrototypeOf points out, it is a bad idea to modify the prototype of an object after it is created for performance reasons, in addition to the fact that modifying an object's prototype after it is created can cause undefined behavior if a given piece of code that accesses it can be executed before OR after the prototype is modified, unless that code is very careful to check the current prototype or not access any property that differs between the two.
Given
const X = function (v) { this.v = v };
X.prototype.whatAmI = 'X';
X.prototype.getWhatIAm = () => this.whatAmI;
X.prototype.getV = () => this.v;
the following VM pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x0 = new X(1);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
X.prototype.constructor.call(x0, 1);
Note although the constructor can return any value, the new statement always ignores its return value and returns a reference to the newly created object.
And the following pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x1 = Object.create(X.prototype);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
As you can see, the only difference between the two is that Object.create does not execute the constructor, which can actually return any value but simply returns the new object reference this if not otherwise specified.
Now, if we wanted to create a subclass Y with the following definition:
const Y = function(u) { this.u = u; }
Y.prototype.whatAmI = 'Y';
Y.prototype.getU = () => this.u;
Then we can make it inherit from X like this by writing to __proto__:
Y.prototype.__proto__ = X.prototype;
While the same thing could be accomplished without ever writing to __proto__ with:
Y.prototype = Object.create(X.prototype);
Y.prototype.constructor = Y;
In the latter case, it is necessary to set the constructor property of the prototype so that the correct constructor is called by the new Y statement, otherwise new Y will call the function X. If the programmer does want new Y to call X, it would be more properly done in Y's constructor with X.call(this, u)
new Operator
This is used to create object from a constructor function
The new keywords also executes the constructor function
function Car() {
console.log(this) // this points to myCar
this.name = "Honda";
}
var myCar = new Car()
console.log(myCar) // Car {name: "Honda", constructor: Object}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // true
console.log(myCar.constructor) // function Car() {}
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // true
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
Object.create
You can also use Object.create to create a new object
But, it does not execute the constructor function
Object.create is used to create an object from another object
const Car = {
name: "Honda"
}
var myCar = Object.create(Car)
console.log(myCar) // Object {}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // ERROR
console.log(myCar.constructor) // Anonymous function object
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // false
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
I prefer a closure approach.
I still use new.
I don't use Object.create.
I don't use this.
I still use new as I like the declarative nature of it.
Consider this for simple inheritance.
window.Quad = (function() {
function Quad() {
const wheels = 4;
const drivingWheels = 2;
let motorSize = 0;
function setMotorSize(_) {
motorSize = _;
}
function getMotorSize() {
return motorSize;
}
function getWheelCount() {
return wheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return drivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze({
getWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount,
getMotorSize,
setMotorSize
});
}
return Object.freeze(Quad);
})();
window.Car4wd = (function() {
function Car4wd() {
const quad = new Quad();
const spareWheels = 1;
const extraDrivingWheels = 2;
function getSpareWheelCount() {
return spareWheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return quad.getDrivingWheelCount() + extraDrivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze(Object.assign({}, quad, {
getSpareWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount
}));
}
return Object.freeze(Car4wd);
})();
let myQuad = new Quad();
let myCar = new Car4wd();
console.log(myQuad.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myQuad.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 2
console.log(myCar.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myCar.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 4 - The overridden method is called
console.log(myCar.getSpareWheelCount()); // 1
Feedback encouraged.
I am trying to understand what is going on here:
if (!Object.create) {
Object.create = (function () {
var F = function(){};
return function (o) {
if (arguments.length !== 1) {
throw new Error('Object.create implementation only accepts one parameter.');
}
F.prototype = o;
return new F();
};
}());
}
what does F.prototype mean... How does returning a function work
These are two separate questions. The concept of a prototype and what it means is separate from the concept of returning functions. I will do my best to try and explain.
What does F.prototype mean?
Javascript does not support inheritance in the classical sense, but rather uses prototype inheritance to pass object properties from one function to another.
All Javascript objects contain a prototype field by default. The prototype field is always initially set to the base Object object. (You can create a new instance of Object by doing
var x = new Object() or by doing var x = {}.) You can create objects that set the prototype to another object thereby gaining access to their methods and properties that are placed on the prototype.
Let's walk through an example to illustrate.
Consider you create a constructor to create a Bird object.
function Bird(name) {
var me = this;
this.name = name;
this.flying = false;
this.fly = function() { me.flying = true; };
}
Bird.prototype.fly = function() { this.flying = true; }
Bird.prototype.land = function() { this.flying = false; }
If we look at the details of this object (which you can do using console.dir(obj), or by using Chrome developer tools):
Now consider you want to create another bird object that implements the Object Bird. You would do something like this.
function Duck(name) {
this.name = name;
this.quack = function() {
console.log("quack");
}
}
If you look at the details of this object you see:
Now if you want to make the duck fly, you do not have a method on it yet. You need to set the prototype of Duck to be Bird. You do that by doing something like this:
function Duck(name) {
this.name = name;
this.quack = function() {
console.log("quack");
}
}
Duck.prototype = new Bird();
Now when you look at the details of the object you will see that the prototype is now set to bird.
In short prototypes are used to provide code reuse among objects. Programmers coming from object oriented backgrounds can use prototypes to provide the same mechanisms as inheritance. Mozilla has a good article that goes into more depth.
How does returning a function work?
Javascript is a functional programming language. One of the principles of the functional programming paradigm is the existence function as first class objects. Among other things this means that functions are treated the same as any other object.
A function returning a function means nothing different then a function that returns a string.
function getString() {
return "I am a string";
}
You can use the result of this function in whatever way you choose. A function that returns a function is the same way.
function getFunctionToGetSomethingImportant() {
return function() {
return "I am something important";
}
}
Now when you want to get a function that returns a function that does something important you can do this:
var x = getFunctionToGetSomethingImportant();
x();
Despite these use cases having little value, using functions as first class objects is incredibly valuable. Functions can be treated like other objects which means they can be passed into other functions as parameters (a concept called higher order functions).
function filter(list, function(element) {
return element < 0;
});
The function filter takes as its second parameter a function that takes an element parameter. An implementation of filter would loop through each element in list and apply the function given as the second paramater. This is one example of many important use cases of functions as first class objects. This wiki article contains more information.
Initialy F is empty function and new F() returns empty object, i.e {}
after
F.prototype = o
F as class gets properties of the object o
for example if o={a:1}, then new F() returns {a:1}
this is the same like you define F as
F = function(){
this.a = 1;
}
but in your example you can create new object based on the class of object o passed to the create() function
function dostuff() {
return function () {console.log('hello')}
}
f = dostuff();
f();
--output:--
hello
.
Array.prototype.greet = function() {console.log('hello')};
[1, 2, 3].greet();
--output:--
hello
.
function Dog(name) {
this.name = name;
this.speak = function() {console.log('Ruff, ruff!') };
}
mydog = new Dog("Joey")
console.log(mydog.name);
mydog.speak();
--output:--
Joey
Ruff, ruff!
.
function Dog() {
}
Dog.prototype.speak = function() {console.log("Ruff, ruff!")};
mydog = new Dog();
mydog.speak();
--output:--
Ruff, ruff!
.
function Dog() {
}
var obj = {
name: "Joey",
speak: function() {console.log("Ruff, ruff!")}
}
Dog.prototype = obj;
mydog = new Dog();
console.log(mydog.name);
mydog.speak();
--output:--
Joey
Ruff, ruff!
obj.jump = function() {console.log("Look at me jump!")};
mydog.jump();
--output:--
Look at me jump!
.
var F = function() {
};
var o = {
"greet": function() {console.log('hello')}
};
F.prototype = o;
f = new F();
f.greet();
--output:--
hello
I find this is most recommended way to do inheritance in javascript.
function extend(Child, Parent) {
var F = function(){};
F.prototype = Parent.prototype;
Child.prototype = new F();
}
what if I already have methods in child's prototype, aren't they will overwrite, shouldn't we preserve them.
function extend(Child, Parent) {
var c = child.prototype;
var oldProto = new C();
var F = function(){};
F.prototype = Parent.prototype;
Child.prototype = new F();
for(var i in oldProto ){
Child.prototype[i] = oldProto[i]
}
}
I'm not sure if this is any good to you, but it's well important to remember: prototypes are not the same things as classes. What you're doing is trying to make JS behave like a traditional OO language, which is trying to teach a dolphin to dance ballet, or forcing a tiger to become vegan: Admirable, but destined to end in tears.
I can't really see why you'd want to use the extend function to do whatever it is you're trying to do. Why not simply use this:
function Parent()
{};
function Child()
{};
//augment parent proto
Parent.prototype.parentMethod1 = function()
{};
//set Child's proto to Parent
Child.prototype = new Parent();
Child.prototype.constructor = Child;
//Then augment the Child's prototype
Child.prototype.childMethod1 = function()
{};
var foo = new Child();
foo.parentMethod1();//works
foo.childMethod1();//works, too
IMO, this solves the problem entirely. Sure, it's a tad more verbose, but OOP always is.
The pattern you're trying to achieve is called multiple inheritance. And it's highly not recommended for the use because of the issue you're experiencing, called diamond problem. Just use mixin pattern instead.
The code below is the one of the best I have seen for doing inheritance in JavaScript.
Object.create(proto [, propertiesObject ]) is discussed on MDN here.
Below, Jon defines a base empty object called ExtendBase then adds a function property called extend which is not enumerable which takes as its argument a single new object.
That object should contain enumerable properties such as methods and data that will be added to the base object.
He gets all the enumerable properties from the passed object, then creates an array of the necessary descriptors to pass into Object.create using those properties' names. He then uses the parent object as the prototype and resultant descriptors as new properties to be added to the child object directly in the Object.create() call.
As you can see, you can use an object argument with properties, including methods, to extend a parent without losing that passed object's properties with the result being a child object with the parent as the prototype and the enumerable objects of the passed object added directly to the child.
However, this maintains a clean prototype chain while intending to extend parent objects using other objects which are created sanely to extend the parent into a new child in a way that makes sense:
Live sample here (Press F12 in Chrome for console output, or use FireBug in FireFox, etc.)
JavaScript:
// Original Author: FireFly - Jonas Höglund - ##javascript channel
// on irc.freenode.net - see THANKS File. Updated to private data
// members and passable initial parameters by Scott Sanbar
///////////////
// Library code
///////////////
var ExtendBase = {};
Object.defineProperty(ExtendBase, 'extend', {
enumerable:false, value:function (obj) {
'use strict';
var descs = {};
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).forEach(function (key) {
descs[key] = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(obj, key)
});
return Object.create(this, descs);
}
});
///////////////
// Sample Usage
///////////////
function PersonObj(nam) {
return {
name:new function () {
var name = nam;
this.set = function (value) {
name = value;
};
this.get = function () {
return name;
}
},
// A person can tell you its name.
talk:function () {
return "Hello, I'm " + this.name.get();
}
}
}
;
function WorkingPersonObj(occ) {
return {
occupation:new function () {
var occupation = occ;
this.set = function (value) {
occupation = value;
};
this.get = function () {
return occupation;
}
},
// A working person also tells you their occupation when they talk.
talk:function () {
return Person.talk.call(this) + " and I am a " + this.occupation.get();
}
}
}
;
var hush = {
hush:function () {
return "I am supposed to be quiet";
}
};
var Person = ExtendBase.extend(new PersonObj('Harry'));
var WorkingPerson = Person.extend(new WorkingPersonObj('wizard'));
var wp1 = WorkingPerson.extend(hush);
console.log(wp1.talk()); // "Hello, I'm Harry and I am a wizard"
console.log(wp1.hush()); // "I am supposed to be quiet"
wp1.name.set("Elijah");
wp1.occupation.set("prophet");
console.log(wp1.talk()); // "Hello, I'm Elijah and I am a prophet"
console.log(wp1.name.get());
console.log(wp1.occupation.get());
I think the following code will make the question clear.
// My class
var Class = function() { console.log("Constructor"); };
Class.prototype = { method: function() { console.log("Method");} }
// Creating an instance with new
var object1 = new Class();
object1.method();
console.log("New returned", object1);
// How to write a factory which can't use the new keyword?
function factory(clazz) {
// Assume this function can't see "Class", but only sees its parameter "clazz".
return clazz.call(); // Calls the constructor, but no new object is created
return clazz.new(); // Doesn't work because there is new() method
};
var object2 = factory(Class);
object2.method();
console.log("Factory returned", object2);
A simpler, cleaner way with no "factories"
function Person(name) {
if (!(this instanceof Person)) return new Person(name);
this.name = name;
}
var p1 = new Person('Fred');
var p2 = Person('Barney');
p1 instanceof Person //=> true
p2 instanceof Person //=> true
Doesn't this work?
function factory(class_, ...arg) {
return new class_(...arg);
}
I don't understand why you can't use new.
If you really don't want to use the new keyword, and you don't mind only supporting Firefox, you can set the prototype yourself. There's not really any point to this though, since you can just use Dave Hinton's answer.
// This is essentially what the new keyword does
function factory(clazz) {
var obj = {};
obj.__proto__ = clazz.prototype;
var result = clazz.call(obj);
return (typeof result !== 'undefined') ? result : obj;
};
I guess browser independent solution would be better
function empty() {}
function factory(clazz /*, some more arguments for constructor */) {
empty.prototype = clazz.prototype;
var obj = new empty();
clazz.apply(obj, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
return obj;
}
Because JavaScript doesn't have classes, let me reword your question: How to create a new object based on an existing object without using the new keyword?
Here is a method that doesn't use "new". It's not strictly a "new instance of" but it's the only way I could think of that doesn't use "new" (and doesn't use any ECMAScript 5 features).
//a very basic version that doesn't use 'new'
function factory(clazz) {
var o = {};
for (var prop in clazz) {
o[prop] = clazz[prop];
}
return o;
};
//test
var clazz = { prop1: "hello clazz" };
var testObj1 = factory(clazz);
console.log(testObj1.prop1); //"hello clazz"
You could get fancy and set the prototype, but then you get into cross-browser issues and I'm trying to keep this simple. Also you may want to use "hasOwnProperty" to filter which properties you add to the new object.
There are other ways that use "new" but sort of hide it. Here is one that borrows from the Object.create function in JavaScript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford:
//Another version the does use 'new' but in a limited sense
function factory(clazz) {
var F = function() {};
F.prototype = clazz;
return new F();
};
//Test
var orig = { prop1: "hello orig" };
var testObj2 = factory(orig);
console.log(testObj2.prop1); //"hello orig"
EcmaScript 5 has the Object.create method which will do this much better but is only supported in newer browsers (e.g., IE9, FF4), but you can use a polyfill (something that fills in the cracks), such as ES5 Shim, to get an implementation for older browsers. (See John Resig's article on new ES5 features including Object.create).
In ES5 you can do it like this:
//using Object.create - doesn't use "new"
var baseObj = { prop1: "hello base" };
var testObj3 = Object.create(baseObj);
console.log(testObj3.prop1);
I hope that helps
Another way:
var factory = function(clazz /*, arguments*/) {
var args = [].slice.call(arguments, 1);
return new function() {
clazz.apply(this, args)
}
}
To answer the question more literally, i.e. how to have myClass() return new myClass()... It's not possible, and here's why...
You'd have to do it like this, to make sure that the class name exists and that you're capturing calls to myClass() (using apply functionality, from Proxy/trap/handler-land):
class A {
}
A.prototype.apply = function() {
return new A();
}
A(); //Error occurs here.
OR:
class B {
}
B.apply = function() {
return new B();
}
B(); //Error occurs here.
And the reason this doesn't work is the output when you try to evaluate either of the above: Uncaught TypeError: class constructors must be invoked with 'new'
Thus, JavaScript literally does not allow it, because you have declared it to be a class type. However, you can of course have a separately named function that creates a new instance for you, like in the answer above, or more simply:
class A {
}
//Note: a != A.
function a() {
return new A();
}
OR, another way to approach this problem is to not use a class, per-se, but a function or a regular JS object {}, like in the older days of JavaScript. Multiple other answers show how to do this.
What you could also do is use eval.
Of course there are security concerns with eval, but is it really different to any other dynamic instanciation?
await import("/path/to/module") //use this to dynamically load module if you like
let obj = `eval new ${classname}();`