We Keep Coding

Override JS method i Java style [duplicate]

I would like to override a Javascript built-in function with a new version that calls the original (similarly to overriding a method on a class with a version that calls super in many languages). How can I do this?
For example...
window.alert = function(str) {
//do something additional
if(console) console.log(str);
//super.alert(str) // How do I do this bit?
}

Store a reference to the original function in a variable:
(function() {
var _alert = window.alert; // <-- Reference
window.alert = function(str) {
// do something additional
if(console) console.log(str);
//return _alert.apply(this, arguments); // <-- The universal method
_alert(str); // Suits for this case
};
})();
The universal way is <original_func_reference>.apply(this, arguments) - To preserve context and pass all arguments. Usually, the return value of the original method should also be returned.
However, it's known that alert is a void function, takes only one argument, and does not use the this object. So, _alert(str) is sufficient in this case.
Note: IE <= 8 throws an error if you try to overwrite alert, so make sure that you're using window.alert = ... instead of alert = ....

There is no "super". Anyway, create a closure to "keep" around the original function-object.
Note the "self invoking function" that returns a new function-object (that is assigned to the window.alert property). The new function-object returned creates a closure around the variable original which evaluates to the original value of window.alert that was passed in to the "self invoking function".
window.alert = (function (original) {
return function (str) {
//do something additional
if(console) {
console.log(str)
}
original(str)
}
})(window.alert)
However, I believe some browsers may prevent alert and other built-ins from being modified...
Happy coding.

I'm assuming your question is how do you overwrite a built-in and still be able to call it. First off as a disclaimer, you should never overwrite built ins unless you have a good reason for doing it since it will make it impossible to debug/test.
This is how you would do it:
window._alert = window.alert;
window.alert = function(str) {
if(console) console.log(str);
window._alert(str);
}

How to do simple classical inheritance in Javascript:
SuperClass.call(this) // inherit from SuperClass (multiple inheritance yes)
How to override functions:
this.myFunction = this.myFunction.override(
function(){
this.superFunction(); // call the overridden function
}
);
The override function is created like this:
Function.prototype.override = function(func)
{
var superFunction = this;
return function()
{
this.superFunction = superFunction;
return func.apply(this,arguments);
};
};
Works with multiple arguments.
Fails when trying to override undefined or nonfunctions.
Makes "superFunction" a "reserved" word :-)

JavaScript does not use a classical inheritance model. There is a nice article here which describes a way to write your classes so that a similar syntax can be used, but it's not natively supported.

By using proxy object you can do this.
window.alert = new Proxy(window.alert , {
apply: function(target,that,args){
console && console.log(args.join('\n'));
target.apply(that,args)
}})

How to get name of variable/object that has been pushed into an array? [duplicate]

Let's say I instantiate an object in Javascript like this:
var myObj = new someObject();
Now, is it possible to obtain the var object's name as string 'myObj' from within one of the class methods?
Additional details (edited):
The reason why I would like to get the name of the variable holding reference to the object is that my new myObj would create a new clickable DIV on the page that would need to call a function myObj.someFunction(). As I insert the new DIV I need to know the name of the variable holding reference to the object. Is there maybe a better way of doing this?
You are right, sorry for the mixup in terminology.
The reason why I would like to get the name of the variable holding reference to the object is that my new myObj would create a new clickable DIV on the page that would need to call a function myObj.someFunction(). As I insert the new DIV I need to know the name of the variable holding reference to the object. Is there maybe a better way of doing this?

Shog9 is right that this doesn't make all that much sense to ask, since an object could be referred to by multiple variables. If you don't really care about that, and all you want is to find the name of one of the global variables that refers to that object, you could do the following hack:
function myClass() {
this.myName = function () {
// search through the global object for a name that resolves to this object
for (var name in this.global)
if (this.global[name] == this)
return name
}
}
// store the global object, which can be referred to as this at the top level, in a
// property on our prototype, so we can refer to it in our object's methods
myClass.prototype.global = this
// create a global variable referring to an object
var myVar = new myClass()
myVar.myName() // returns "myVar"
Note that this is an ugly hack, and should not be used in production code. If there is more than one variable referring to an object, you can't tell which one you'll get. It will only search the global variables, so it won't work if a variable is local to a function. In general, if you need to name something, you should pass the name in to the constructor when you create it.
edit: To respond to your clarification, if you need to be able to refer to something from an event handler, you shouldn't be referring to it by name, but instead add a function that refers to the object directly. Here's a quick example that I whipped up that shows something similar, I think, to what you're trying to do:
function myConstructor () {
this.count = 0
this.clickme = function () {
this.count += 1
alert(this.count)
}
var newDiv = document.createElement("div")
var contents = document.createTextNode("Click me!")
// This is the crucial part. We don't construct an onclick handler by creating a
// string, but instead we pass in a function that does what we want. In order to
// refer to the object, we can't use this directly (since that will refer to the
// div when running event handler), but we create an anonymous function with an
// argument and pass this in as that argument.
newDiv.onclick = (function (obj) {
return function () {
obj.clickme()
}
})(this)
newDiv.appendChild(contents)
document.getElementById("frobnozzle").appendChild(newDiv)
}
window.onload = function () {
var myVar = new myConstructor()
}

Short answer: No. myObj isn't the name of the object, it's the name of a variable holding a reference to the object - you could have any number of other variables holding a reference to the same object.
Now, if it's your program, then you make the rules: if you want to say that any given object will only be referenced by one variable, ever, and diligently enforce that in your code, then just set a property on the object with the name of the variable.
That said, i doubt what you're asking for is actually what you really want. Maybe describe your problem in a bit more detail...?
Pedantry: JavaScript doesn't have classes. someObject is a constructor function. Given a reference to an object, you can obtain a reference to the function that created it using the constructor property.
In response to the additional details you've provided:
The answer you're looking for can be found here: JavaScript Callback Scope (and in response to numerous other questions on SO - it's a common point of confusion for those new to JS). You just need to wrap the call to the object member in a closure that preserves access to the context object.

You can do it converting by the constructor to a string using .toString() :
function getObjectClass(obj){
if (typeof obj != "object" || obj === null) return false;
else return /(\w+)\(/.exec(obj.constructor.toString())[1];}

You might be able to achieve your goal by using it in a function, and then examining the function's source with toString():
var whatsMyName;
// Just do something with the whatsMyName variable, no matter what
function func() {var v = whatsMyName;}
// Now that we're using whatsMyName in a function, we could get the source code of the function as a string:
var source = func.toString();
// Then extract the variable name from the function source:
var result = /var v = (.[^;]*)/.exec(source);
alert(result[1]); // Should alert 'whatsMyName';

If you don't want to use a function constructor like in Brian's answer you can use Object.create() instead:-
var myVar = {
count: 0
}
myVar.init = function(n) {
this.count = n
this.newDiv()
}
myVar.newDiv = function() {
var newDiv = document.createElement("div")
var contents = document.createTextNode("Click me!")
var func = myVar.func(this)
newDiv.addEventListener ?
newDiv.addEventListener('click', func, false) :
newDiv.attachEvent('onclick', func)
newDiv.appendChild(contents)
document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChild(newDiv)
}
myVar.func = function (thys) {
return function() {
thys.clickme()
}
}
myVar.clickme = function () {
this.count += 1
alert(this.count)
}
myVar.init(2)
var myVar1 = Object.create(myVar)
myVar1.init(55)
var myVar2 = Object.create(myVar)
myVar2.init(150)
// etc
Strangely, I couldn't get the above to work using newDiv.onClick, but it works with newDiv.addEventListener / newDiv.attachEvent.
Since Object.create is newish, include the following code from Douglas Crockford for older browsers, including IE8.
if (typeof Object.create !== 'function') {
Object.create = function (o) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
}

As a more elementary situation it would be nice IF this had a property that could reference it's referring variable (heads or tails) but unfortunately it only references the instantiation of the new coinSide object.
javascript: /* it would be nice but ... a solution NOT! */
function coinSide(){this.ref=this};
/* can .ref be set so as to identify it's referring variable? (heads or tails) */
heads = new coinSide();
tails = new coinSide();
toss = Math.random()<0.5 ? heads : tails;
alert(toss.ref);
alert(["FF's Gecko engine shows:\n\ntoss.toSource() is ", toss.toSource()])
which always displays
[object Object]
and Firefox's Gecko engine shows:
toss.toSource() is ,#1={ref:#1#}
Of course, in this example, to resolve #1, and hence toss, it's simple enough to test toss==heads and toss==tails. This question, which is really asking if javascript has a call-by-name mechanism, motivates consideration of the counterpart, is there a call-by-value mechanism to determine the ACTUAL value of a variable? The example demonstrates that the "values" of both heads and tails are identical, yet alert(heads==tails) is false.
The self-reference can be coerced as follows:
(avoiding the object space hunt and possible ambiguities as noted in the How to get class object's name as a string in Javascript? solution)
javascript:
function assign(n,v){ eval( n +"="+ v ); eval( n +".ref='"+ n +"'" ) }
function coinSide(){};
assign("heads", "new coinSide()");
assign("tails", "new coinSide()");
toss = Math.random()<0.5 ? heads : tails;
alert(toss.ref);
to display heads or tails.
It is perhaps an anathema to the essence of Javascript's language design, as an interpreted prototyping functional language, to have such capabilities as primitives.
A final consideration:
javascript:
item=new Object(); refName="item"; deferAgain="refName";
alert([deferAgain,eval(deferAgain),eval(eval(deferAgain))].join('\n'));
so, as stipulated ...
javascript:
function bindDIV(objName){
return eval( objName +'=new someObject("'+objName+'")' )
};
function someObject(objName){
this.div="\n<DIV onclick='window.opener."+ /* window.opener - hiccup!! */
objName+
".someFunction()'>clickable DIV</DIV>\n";
this.someFunction=function(){alert(['my variable object name is ',objName])}
};
with(window.open('','test').document){ /* see above hiccup */
write('<html>'+
bindDIV('DIVobj1').div+
bindDIV('DIV2').div+
(alias=bindDIV('multiply')).div+
'an aliased DIV clone'+multiply.div+
'</html>');
close();
};
void (0);
Is there a better way ... ?
"better" as in easier? Easier to program? Easier to understand? Easier as in faster execution? Or is it as in "... and now for something completely different"?

Immediately after the object is instantiatd, you can attach a property, say name, to the object and assign the string value you expect to it:
var myObj = new someClass();
myObj.name="myObj";
document.write(myObj.name);
Alternatively, the assignment can be made inside the codes of the class, i.e.
var someClass = function(P)
{ this.name=P;
// rest of the class definition...
};
var myObj = new someClass("myObj");
document.write(myObj.name);

Some time ago, I used this.
Perhaps you could try:
+function(){
var my_var = function get_this_name(){
alert("I " + this.init());
};
my_var.prototype.init = function(){
return my_var.name;
}
new my_var();
}();
Pop an Alert: "I get_this_name".

This is pretty old, but I ran across this question via Google, so perhaps this solution might be useful to others.
function GetObjectName(myObject){
var objectName=JSON.stringify(myObject).match(/"(.*?)"/)[1];
return objectName;
}
It just uses the browser's JSON parser and regex without cluttering up the DOM or your object too much.

Why does javascript concatenate function names in multiple assignment to properties?

This is an edge case and probably bad practice, but it made me curious about some js internals. Can anyone explain why chrome dev tools tells me that I have created a function named a.a.b.b here?
Note that this does not happen unless you are assigning to a property. Otherwise both a and b appear to refer to a function object named 'b':
By the way, I originally encountered this here when trying to answer my own question about dat.gui.js .

This has nothing to do with the language spec.
It's a DevTools enhancement for debugging convenience, which is ported recently in Chrome.
Remember what we used to do?
function F() {}
// notice it's a NAMED function expression
F.prototype.asdf = function _asdf() { debugger; };
var f = new F();
f.asdf();
Then in breakpoint debugging, we can find the method by its name _asdf from function call stack. Otherwise it's the pain in the ass to do that from a list of (anonymous function).
In latest Chrome, when you assign an anonymous function as an object property, an alias will be attached to it.
var a = {}, b = {};
a.a = b.b = function() { debugger; };
a.b = b.a = function _abba() { debugger; };
Remember, it's just a DevTools enhancement, the method remains anonymous:
a.a.name; // ""
a.b.name; // "_abba"
But it's very helpful in breakpoint debugging:
a.a();
a.b();
EDIT:
I'm not very sure why the alias is generated as a.a.b.b, it looks very easy but kind of... stupid. However, in practice we seldom do a.a = b.b = func... thing (lucky). Instead, we define a method in one place, and do inheritence when necessary, rather than copy reference directly.
So in a good programming practice, the alias should and would exactly reflect where you define the method. For example, alias Dog.bark in breakpoint clearly maps to Dog.prototype.bark in source code, even if it's called on a Puppy instance, and we don't have to do old school named function expression.
function Dog() {}
Dog.prototype.bark = function() { alert("Woof!") }; // anonymous function expression here
function Puppy() {}
Puppy.prototype = new Dog();
(new Puppy()).bark(); // break point alias -> Dog.bark
One more thing, when I discovered this feature, I can't stop thinking of it - does it imply that Chrome will implement ES6 class very soon? How exciting!

Getting the name of a variable from within the variable. (JS) [duplicate]

Let's say I instantiate an object in Javascript like this:
var myObj = new someObject();
Now, is it possible to obtain the var object's name as string 'myObj' from within one of the class methods?
Additional details (edited):
The reason why I would like to get the name of the variable holding reference to the object is that my new myObj would create a new clickable DIV on the page that would need to call a function myObj.someFunction(). As I insert the new DIV I need to know the name of the variable holding reference to the object. Is there maybe a better way of doing this?
You are right, sorry for the mixup in terminology.
The reason why I would like to get the name of the variable holding reference to the object is that my new myObj would create a new clickable DIV on the page that would need to call a function myObj.someFunction(). As I insert the new DIV I need to know the name of the variable holding reference to the object. Is there maybe a better way of doing this?

Shog9 is right that this doesn't make all that much sense to ask, since an object could be referred to by multiple variables. If you don't really care about that, and all you want is to find the name of one of the global variables that refers to that object, you could do the following hack:
function myClass() {
this.myName = function () {
// search through the global object for a name that resolves to this object
for (var name in this.global)
if (this.global[name] == this)
return name
}
}
// store the global object, which can be referred to as this at the top level, in a
// property on our prototype, so we can refer to it in our object's methods
myClass.prototype.global = this
// create a global variable referring to an object
var myVar = new myClass()
myVar.myName() // returns "myVar"
Note that this is an ugly hack, and should not be used in production code. If there is more than one variable referring to an object, you can't tell which one you'll get. It will only search the global variables, so it won't work if a variable is local to a function. In general, if you need to name something, you should pass the name in to the constructor when you create it.
edit: To respond to your clarification, if you need to be able to refer to something from an event handler, you shouldn't be referring to it by name, but instead add a function that refers to the object directly. Here's a quick example that I whipped up that shows something similar, I think, to what you're trying to do:
function myConstructor () {
this.count = 0
this.clickme = function () {
this.count += 1
alert(this.count)
}
var newDiv = document.createElement("div")
var contents = document.createTextNode("Click me!")
// This is the crucial part. We don't construct an onclick handler by creating a
// string, but instead we pass in a function that does what we want. In order to
// refer to the object, we can't use this directly (since that will refer to the
// div when running event handler), but we create an anonymous function with an
// argument and pass this in as that argument.
newDiv.onclick = (function (obj) {
return function () {
obj.clickme()
}
})(this)
newDiv.appendChild(contents)
document.getElementById("frobnozzle").appendChild(newDiv)
}
window.onload = function () {
var myVar = new myConstructor()
}

Short answer: No. myObj isn't the name of the object, it's the name of a variable holding a reference to the object - you could have any number of other variables holding a reference to the same object.
Now, if it's your program, then you make the rules: if you want to say that any given object will only be referenced by one variable, ever, and diligently enforce that in your code, then just set a property on the object with the name of the variable.
That said, i doubt what you're asking for is actually what you really want. Maybe describe your problem in a bit more detail...?
Pedantry: JavaScript doesn't have classes. someObject is a constructor function. Given a reference to an object, you can obtain a reference to the function that created it using the constructor property.
In response to the additional details you've provided:
The answer you're looking for can be found here: JavaScript Callback Scope (and in response to numerous other questions on SO - it's a common point of confusion for those new to JS). You just need to wrap the call to the object member in a closure that preserves access to the context object.

You can do it converting by the constructor to a string using .toString() :
function getObjectClass(obj){
if (typeof obj != "object" || obj === null) return false;
else return /(\w+)\(/.exec(obj.constructor.toString())[1];}

You might be able to achieve your goal by using it in a function, and then examining the function's source with toString():
var whatsMyName;
// Just do something with the whatsMyName variable, no matter what
function func() {var v = whatsMyName;}
// Now that we're using whatsMyName in a function, we could get the source code of the function as a string:
var source = func.toString();
// Then extract the variable name from the function source:
var result = /var v = (.[^;]*)/.exec(source);
alert(result[1]); // Should alert 'whatsMyName';

If you don't want to use a function constructor like in Brian's answer you can use Object.create() instead:-
var myVar = {
count: 0
}
myVar.init = function(n) {
this.count = n
this.newDiv()
}
myVar.newDiv = function() {
var newDiv = document.createElement("div")
var contents = document.createTextNode("Click me!")
var func = myVar.func(this)
newDiv.addEventListener ?
newDiv.addEventListener('click', func, false) :
newDiv.attachEvent('onclick', func)
newDiv.appendChild(contents)
document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChild(newDiv)
}
myVar.func = function (thys) {
return function() {
thys.clickme()
}
}
myVar.clickme = function () {
this.count += 1
alert(this.count)
}
myVar.init(2)
var myVar1 = Object.create(myVar)
myVar1.init(55)
var myVar2 = Object.create(myVar)
myVar2.init(150)
// etc
Strangely, I couldn't get the above to work using newDiv.onClick, but it works with newDiv.addEventListener / newDiv.attachEvent.
Since Object.create is newish, include the following code from Douglas Crockford for older browsers, including IE8.
if (typeof Object.create !== 'function') {
Object.create = function (o) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
}

As a more elementary situation it would be nice IF this had a property that could reference it's referring variable (heads or tails) but unfortunately it only references the instantiation of the new coinSide object.
javascript: /* it would be nice but ... a solution NOT! */
function coinSide(){this.ref=this};
/* can .ref be set so as to identify it's referring variable? (heads or tails) */
heads = new coinSide();
tails = new coinSide();
toss = Math.random()<0.5 ? heads : tails;
alert(toss.ref);
alert(["FF's Gecko engine shows:\n\ntoss.toSource() is ", toss.toSource()])
which always displays
[object Object]
and Firefox's Gecko engine shows:
toss.toSource() is ,#1={ref:#1#}
Of course, in this example, to resolve #1, and hence toss, it's simple enough to test toss==heads and toss==tails. This question, which is really asking if javascript has a call-by-name mechanism, motivates consideration of the counterpart, is there a call-by-value mechanism to determine the ACTUAL value of a variable? The example demonstrates that the "values" of both heads and tails are identical, yet alert(heads==tails) is false.
The self-reference can be coerced as follows:
(avoiding the object space hunt and possible ambiguities as noted in the How to get class object's name as a string in Javascript? solution)
javascript:
function assign(n,v){ eval( n +"="+ v ); eval( n +".ref='"+ n +"'" ) }
function coinSide(){};
assign("heads", "new coinSide()");
assign("tails", "new coinSide()");
toss = Math.random()<0.5 ? heads : tails;
alert(toss.ref);
to display heads or tails.
It is perhaps an anathema to the essence of Javascript's language design, as an interpreted prototyping functional language, to have such capabilities as primitives.
A final consideration:
javascript:
item=new Object(); refName="item"; deferAgain="refName";
alert([deferAgain,eval(deferAgain),eval(eval(deferAgain))].join('\n'));
so, as stipulated ...
javascript:
function bindDIV(objName){
return eval( objName +'=new someObject("'+objName+'")' )
};
function someObject(objName){
this.div="\n<DIV onclick='window.opener."+ /* window.opener - hiccup!! */
objName+
".someFunction()'>clickable DIV</DIV>\n";
this.someFunction=function(){alert(['my variable object name is ',objName])}
};
with(window.open('','test').document){ /* see above hiccup */
write('<html>'+
bindDIV('DIVobj1').div+
bindDIV('DIV2').div+
(alias=bindDIV('multiply')).div+
'an aliased DIV clone'+multiply.div+
'</html>');
close();
};
void (0);
Is there a better way ... ?
"better" as in easier? Easier to program? Easier to understand? Easier as in faster execution? Or is it as in "... and now for something completely different"?

Immediately after the object is instantiatd, you can attach a property, say name, to the object and assign the string value you expect to it:
var myObj = new someClass();
myObj.name="myObj";
document.write(myObj.name);
Alternatively, the assignment can be made inside the codes of the class, i.e.
var someClass = function(P)
{ this.name=P;
// rest of the class definition...
};
var myObj = new someClass("myObj");
document.write(myObj.name);

Some time ago, I used this.
Perhaps you could try:
+function(){
var my_var = function get_this_name(){
alert("I " + this.init());
};
my_var.prototype.init = function(){
return my_var.name;
}
new my_var();
}();
Pop an Alert: "I get_this_name".

This is pretty old, but I ran across this question via Google, so perhaps this solution might be useful to others.
function GetObjectName(myObject){
var objectName=JSON.stringify(myObject).match(/"(.*?)"/)[1];
return objectName;
}
It just uses the browser's JSON parser and regex without cluttering up the DOM or your object too much.

Legitimate uses of the Function constructor

As repeatedly said, it is considered bad practice to use the Function constructor (also see the ECMAScript Language Specification, 5th edition, § 15.3.2.1):
new Function ([arg1[, arg2[, … argN]],] functionBody)
(where all arguments are strings containing argument names and the last (or only) string contains the function body).
To recapitulate, it is said to be slow, as explained by the Opera team:
Each time […] the Function
constructor is called on a string
representing source code, the script
engine must start the machinery that
converts the source code to executable
code. This is usually expensive for
performance – easily a hundred times
more expensive than a simple function
call, for example. (Mark ‘Tarquin’ Wilton-Jones)
Though it's not that bad, according to this post on MDC (I didn't test this myself using the current version of Firefox, though).
Crockford adds that
[t]he quoting conventions of the
language make it very difficult to
correctly express a function body as a
string. In the string form, early
error checking cannot be done. […] And
it is wasteful of memory because each
function requires its own independent
implementation.
Another difference is that
a function defined by a Function
constructor does not inherit any scope
other than the global scope (which all
functions inherit). (MDC)
Apart from this, you have to be attentive to avoid injection of malicious code, when you create a new Function using dynamic contents.
That said, T.J. Crowder says in an answer that
[t]here's almost never any need for
the similar […] new Function(...),
either, again except for some advanced
edge cases.
So, now I am wondering: what are these “advanced edge cases”? Are there legitimate uses of the Function constructor?

NWMatcher — Javascript CSS selector and matcher, by Diego Perini — uses Function constructor (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) to create ("compile") highly-efficient versions of selector matchers.
The benchmark (which I just ran on Chrome 5) speaks for itself:
Note the difference between NWMatcher and Sizzle, which is a very similar selector engine, only without function compilation :)
On a side note, ECMAScript 5 doesn't throw any errors on invocation of Function. Neither in strict, nor in "standard" modes. Strict mode, however, introduces few restrictions on presence of identifiers such as "eval" and "arguments":
You can't have declare variables/functions/arguments with such names:
function eval() { }
var eval = { };
function f(eval) { }
var o = { set f(eval){ } };
You can't assign to such identifier:
eval = { };
Also note that in strict mode, eval semantics is slightly different from that in ES3. Strict mode code can not instantiate variables or functions in the environment from which it was called:
eval(' "use strict"; var x = 1; ');
typeof x; // "undefined"

I use the new Function() constructor as an in-line JS interpreter in one of the web apps I'm developing:
function interpret(s) {
//eval(s); <-- even worse practice
try {
var f = new Function(s);
f();
}
catch (err) {
//graceful error handling in the case of malformed code
}
}
As I get stuff streaming over AJAX (not an iframe), I continuously interpret() it on readyStateChange == 3. This works surprisingly well.
Edit: here's a clear case study that shows that new Function() is categorically faster than eval(). I.e. you should never (rarely?) use eval in lieu of new Function().
http://polyfx.com/stuff/bsort.html <- the 1000 iteration version, may crash your browser
http://polyfx.com/stuff/bsort10.html <- the shorter version
Eval is on average, almost 8 times slower than new Function().

jQuery uses it to parse JSON strings when a JSON parser object is not available. Seems legit to me :)
// Try to use the native JSON parser first
return window.JSON && window.JSON.parse ?
window.JSON.parse( data ) :
(new Function("return " + data))();

John Resig used the Function constructor to create "compiled" versions of client-side templates written in an asp syntax. http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-micro-templating/

This is a separate case from my other answer.
I used the Function constructor a while back to create custom string formatters that were being called repeatedly. The overhead of creating the function (which I take it is the performance issue you're talking about) was far outweighed by the improved performance of the custom-built functions, which were created at runtime specifically to process a particular format string, and therefore did not need to evaluate tons of irrelevant cases — or parse a format string, for that matter. It's a bit like compiling a regular expression, I suppose.

The only legitimate use I have come for it is when I wrote this:
Function.prototype.New = (function () {
var fs = [];
return function () {
var f = fs [arguments.length];
if (f) {
return f.apply (this, arguments);
}
var argStrs = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; ++i) {
argStrs.push ("a[" + i + "]");
}
f = new Function ("var a=arguments;return new this(" + argStrs.join () + ");");
if (arguments.length < 100) {
fs [arguments.length] = f;
}
return f.apply (this, arguments);
};
}) ();
The code allows you to use Function.prototype.apply while 'using' the new keyword.
Example:
function Foo (x, y, z) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
this.otherArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call (arguments, 3);
}
var foo = Function.prototype.New.apply (Foo, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]);
// /*equiv*/ var foo = Foo.New.apply (Foo, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]);
// /*equiv*/ var foo = Foo.New (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7);
var bool = true
&& foo.x == 1
&& foo.y == 2
&& foo.z == 3
&& foo.otherArgs.length == 4
&& foo.otherArgs [0] == 4
&& foo.otherArgs [1] == 5
&& foo.otherArgs [2] == 6
&& foo.otherArgs [3] == 7
;
alert (bool);

You might want to execute a string of code more than once. Using the Function constructor means that you only have to compile it once.
You might want to pass arguments to the code, for instance if you're polyfilling an event you can retrieve the event attribute and construct a Function expecting an event argument.
You can combine the two and compile it in one location and execute it at another and still manage to pass arguments in the variables that the string of code expects.