We Keep Coding

How to make a slice function closer to the native one? In the form in which invoked? [duplicate]

Google JavaScript Style Guide advises against extending the Array.prototype.
However, I used Array.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter || function(...) {...} as a way to have it (and similar methods) in browsers where they do not exist. MDN actually provides similar example.
I am aware about Object.prototype issues, but Array is not a hash table.
What issues may arise while extending Array.prototype that made Google advise against it?

Most people missed the point on this one. Polyfilling or shimming standard functionality like Array.prototype.filter so that it works in older browsers is a good idea in my opinion. Don't listen to the haters. Mozilla even shows you how to do this on the MDN. Usually the advice for not extending Array.prototype or other native prototypes might come down to one of these:
for..in might not work properly
Someone else might also want to extend Array with the same function name
It might not work properly in every browser, even with the shim.
Here are my responses:
You don't need to use for..in on Array's usually. If you do you can use hasOwnProperty to make sure it's legit.
Only extend natives when you know you're the only one doing it OR when it's standard stuff like Array.prototype.filter.
This is annoying and has bit me. Old IE sometimes has problems with adding this kind of functionality. You'll just have to see if it works in a case by case basis. For me the problem I had was adding Object.keys to IE7. It seemed to stop working under certain circumstances. Your mileage may vary.
Check out these references:
http://perfectionkills.com/extending-native-builtins/
http://blip.tv/jsconf/jsconf2011-andrew-dupont-everything-is-permitted-extending-built-ins-5211542
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/filter
https://github.com/kriskowal/es5-shim
Good luck!

I'll give you the bullet points, with key sentences, from Nicholas Zakas' excellent article Maintainable JavaScript: Don’t modify objects you don’t own:
Dependability: "The simple explanation is that an enterprise software product needs a consistent and dependable execution environment to be maintainable."
Incompatible implementations: "Another peril of modifying objects that you don’t own is the possibility of naming collisions and incompatible implementations."
What if everyone did it?: "Simply put: if everyone on your team modified objects that they didn’t own, you’d quickly run into naming collisions, incompatible implementations, and maintenance nightmares."
Basically, don't do it. Even if your project is never going to be used by anyone else, and you're never going to import third party code, don't do it. You'll establish a horrible habit that could be hard to break when you start trying to play nice with others.

As a modern update to Jamund Ferguson's answer:
Usually the advice for not extending Array.prototype or other native prototypes might come down to one of these:
for..in might not work properly
Someone else might also want to extend Array with the same function name
It might not work properly in every browser, even with the shim.
Points 1. and 2. can now be mitigated in ES6 by using a Symbol to add your method.
It makes for a slightly more clumsy call structure, but adds a property that isn't iterated over and can't be easily duplicated.
// Any string works but a namespace may make library code easier to debug.
var myMethod = Symbol('MyNamespace::myMethod');
Array.prototype[ myMethod ] = function(){ /* ... */ };
var arr = [];
// slightly clumsier call syntax
arr[myMethod]();
// Also works for objects
Object.prototype[ myMethod ] = function(){ /* ... */ };
Pros:
For..in works as expected, symbols aren't iterated over.
No clash of method names as symbols are local to scope and take effort to retrieve.
Cons:
Only works in modern environments
Slightly clunky syntax

Extending Array.prototype in your own application code is safe (unless you use for .. in on arrays, in which case you need to pay for that and have fun refactoring them).
Extending native host objects in libraries you intend others to use is not cool. You have no right to corrupt the environment of other people in your own library.
Either do this behind an optional method like lib.extendNatives() or have [].filter as a requirement.
Extending Natives and Host Objects

Prototype does this. It's evil. The following snippet demonstrates how doing so can produce unexpected results:
<script language="javascript" src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/prototype/1.7.0.0/prototype.js"></script>
<script language="javascript">
a = ["not", "only", "four", "elements"];
for (var i in a)
document.writeln(a[i]);
</script>
The result:
not only four elements function each(iterator, context) { var index = 0; . . .
and about 5000 characters more.

I want to add an additional answer that allows extending the Array prototype without breaking for .. in loops, and without requiring use of hasOwnPropery:
Don't use this bad approach which causes prototype values to appear in for .. in:
Array.prototype.foo = function() { return 'foo'; };
Array.prototype.bar = function() { return 'bar'; };
let a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ];
console.log(`Foo: ${a.foo()}`);
console.log(`Bar: ${a.bar()}`);
console.log('==== Enumerate: ====');
for (let v in a) console.log(v);
Instead use Object.defineProperty, with enumerable: false - it exists for pretty much exactly this reason!
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'foo', {
value: function() { return 'foo'; },
enumerable: false
});
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'bar', {
value: function() { return 'bar'; },
enumerable: false
});
let a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ];
console.log(`Foo: ${a.foo()}`);
console.log(`Bar: ${a.bar()}`);
console.log('==== Enumerate: ====');
for (let v in a) console.log(v);
Note: Overall, I recommend avoiding enumerating Arrays using for .. in. But this knowledge is still useful for extending prototypes of classes where enumeration is appropriate!

Some people use for ... in loops to iterate through arrays. If you add a method to the prototype, the loop will also try to iterate over that key. Of course, you shouldn't use it for this, but some people do anyway.

You can easily create somekind of sandbox with poser library.
Take a look on https://github.com/bevacqua/poser
var Array2 = require('poser').Array();
// <- Array
Array2.prototype.eat = function () {
var r = this[0];
delete this[0];
console.log('Y U NO .shift()?');
return r;
};
var a = new Array2(3, 5, 7);
console.log(Object.keys(Array2.prototype), Object.keys(Array.prototype))

I believe this question deserves an updated ES6 answer.
ES5
First of all, as many people have already stated. Extending the native prototypes to shim or polyfill new standards or fix bugs is standard practice and not harmful. For example if a browser doesn't support the .filter method if (!Array.prototype.filter) you are free to add this functionality on your own. In-fact, the language is designed to do exactly this to manage backwards compatibility.
Now, you'd be forgving for thinking that since JavaScript object use prototypal inheritance, extending a native object like Array.prototype without interfering should be easy, but up until ES6 it's not been feasible.
Unlike objects for example, you had to rely and modifying the Array.prototype to add your own custom methods. As others have pointed out, this is bad because it pollutes the Global namespace, can interfere with other code in an unexpected way, has potential security issues, is a cardinal sin etc.
In ES5 you can try hacking this but the implementations aren't really practically useful. For more in depth information, I recommend you check out this very informative post: http://perfectionkills.com/how-ecmascript-5-still-does-not-allow-to-subclass-an-array/
You can add a method to an array, or even an array constructor but you run into issues trying to work with the native array methods that rely on the length property. Worst of all, these methods are going to return a native Array.prototype and not your shiny new sub-class array, ie: subClassArray.slice(0) instanceof subClassArray === false.
ES6
However, now with ES6 you can subclass builtins using class combined with extends Array that overcomes all these issues. It leaves the Array.prototype intact, creates a new sub-class and the array methods it inherits will be of the same sub-class! https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/08/es6-in-depth-subclassing/
See the fiddle below for a demonstration:
https://jsfiddle.net/dmq8o0q4/1/

Extending the prototype is a trick that only works once. You do and you use a library that also does it (in an incompatible way) and boom!

The function you are overriding could be used by the internal javascript calls and that could lead to unexpected results. Thats one of the reasons for the guideline
For example I overrode indexOf function of array and it messed up accessing array using [].

How can I make a sub-function for a pre-existing data type? [duplicate]

I was working on an AJAX-enabled asp.net application.
I've just added some methods to Array.prototype like
Array.prototype.doSomething = function(){
...
}
This solution worked for me, being possible reuse code in a 'pretty' way.
But when I've tested it working with the entire page, I had problems..
We had some custom ajax extenders, and they started to behave as the unexpected: some controls displayed 'undefined' around its content or value.
What could be the cause for that? Am I missing something about modifing the prototype of standart objects?
Note: I'm pretty sure that the error begins when I modify the prototype for Array. It should be only compatible with IE.

While the potential for clashing with other bits o' code the override a function on a prototype is still a risk, if you want to do this with modern versions of JavaScript, you can use the Object.defineProperty method, e.g.
// functional sort
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'sortf', {
value: function(compare) { return [].concat(this).sort(compare); }
});

Modifying the built-in object prototypes is a bad idea in general, because it always has the potential to clash with code from other vendors or libraries that loads on the same page.
In the case of the Array object prototype, it is an especially bad idea, because it has the potential to interfere with any piece of code that iterates over the members of any array, for instance with for .. in.
To illustrate using an example (borrowed from here):
Array.prototype.foo = 1;
// somewhere deep in other javascript code...
var a = [1,2,3,4,5];
for (x in a){
// Now foo is a part of EVERY array and
// will show up here as a value of 'x'
}
Unfortunately, the existence of questionable code that does this has made it necessary to also avoid using plain for..in for array iteration, at least if you want maximum portability, just to guard against cases where some other nuisance code has modified the Array prototype. So you really need to do both: you should avoid plain for..in in case some n00b has modified the Array prototype, and you should avoid modifying the Array prototype so you don't mess up any code that uses plain for..in to iterate over arrays.
It would be better for you to create your own type of object constructor complete with doSomething function, rather than extending the built-in Array.
What about Object.defineProperty?
There now exists Object.defineProperty as a general way of extending object prototypes without the new properties being enumerable, though this still doesn't justify extending the built-in types, because even besides for..in there is still the potential for conflicts with other scripts. Consider someone using two Javascript frameworks that both try to extend the Array in a similar way and pick the same method name. Or, consider someone forking your code and then putting both the original and forked versions on the same page. Will the custom enhancements to the Array object still work?
This is the reality with Javascript, and why you should avoid modifying the prototypes of built-in types, even with Object.defineProperty. Define your own types with your own constructors.

There is a caution! Maybe you did that: fiddle demo
Let us say an array and a method foo which return first element:
var myArray = ["apple","ball","cat"];
foo(myArray) // <- 'apple'
function foo(array){
return array[0]
}
The above is okay because the functions are uplifted to the top during interpretation time.
But, this DOES NOT work: (Because the prototype is not defined)
myArray.foo() // <- 'undefined function foo'
Array.prototype.foo = function(){
return this[0]
}
For this to work, simply define prototypes at the top:
Array.prototype.foo = function(){
return this[0]
}
myArray.foo() // <- 'apple'
And YES! You can override prototypes!!! It is ALLOWED. You can even define your own own add method for Arrays.

You augmented generic types so to speak. You've probably overwritten some other lib's functionality and that's why it stopped working.
Suppose that some lib you're using extends Array with function Array.remove(). After the lib has loaded, you also add remove() to Array's prototype but with your own functionality. When lib will call your function it will probably work in a different way as expected and break it's execution... That's what's happening here.

Using Recursion
function forEachWithBreak(someArray, fn){
let breakFlag = false
function breakFn(){
breakFlag = true
}
function loop(indexIntoSomeArray){
if(!breakFlag && indexIntoSomeArray<someArray.length){
fn(someArray[indexIntoSomeArray],breakFn)
loop(indexIntoSomeArray+1)
}
}
loop(0)
}
Test 1 ... break is not called
forEachWithBreak(["a","b","c","d","e","f","g"], function(element, breakFn){
console.log(element)
})
Produces
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Test 2 ... break is called after element c
forEachWithBreak(["a","b","c","d","e","f","g"], function(element, breakFn){
console.log(element)
if(element =="c"){breakFn()}
})
Produces
a
b
c

There are 2 problems (as mentioned above)
It's enumerable (i.e. will be seen in for .. in)
Potential clashes (js, yourself, third party, etc.)
To solve these 2 problems we will:
Use Object.defineProperty
Give a unique id for our methods
const arrayMethods = {
doSomething: "uuid() - a real function"
}
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, arrayMethods.doSomething, {
value() {
// Your code, log as an example
this.forEach(v => console.log(v))
}
})
const arr = [1, 2, 3]
arr[arrayMethods.doSomething]() // 1, 2, 3
The syntax is a bit weird but it's nice if you want to chain methods (just don't forget to return this):
arr
.map(x=>x+1)
[arrayMethods.log]()
.map(x=>x+1)
[arrayMethods.log]()

In general messing with the core javascript objects is a bad idea. You never know what any third party libraries might be expecting and changing the core objects in javascript changes them for everything.
If you use Prototype it's especially bad because prototype messes with the global scope as well and it's hard to tell if you are going to collide or not. Actually modifying core parts of any language is usually a bad idea even in javascript.
(lisp might be the small exception there)

Why doesn't my object inherit the keys functions?

If I have an object:
A = {a:true}
Why do I have to use:
Object.keys(A)
and not:
A.keys()
If keys is a method of Object, and everything inherits from Object, shouldn't A be able to call keys?

Object.keys is a so-to-say "static" method attached strictly to the Object function, not to its instances.
For it to be inherited, it would need to be defined as Object.prototype.keys.
You can certainly add it yourself if you so desire:
Object.prototype.keys = function () {
return Object.keys(this);
};
Just note, as Rocket mentioned in the comments, "own" properties take precedence over prototype properties:
var foo = {};
foo.keys(); // Array of enumerable key names, if any
var bar = { keys: true };
bar.keys(); // TypeError: not a function

The real answer is "because that's how the ES committee members designed it." But specifically, the second comment on your original question (by #RobW) is exactly what they wanted to avoid.
Moreover, I would ask that you remove the "accepted answer" designation from #JonathonLonowski's answer, because he is clearly giving (and avidly but unwisely defending) advice (modifying built-in prototype's) which most of the web community knows to be of poor form. The ONLY time when it's OK to modify a built-in's prototype is when you are absolutely certain that no other code will trip over it... the only time that is true is you write 100% of all code that runs (or ever will run) on a page. The number of times that is true is so low that this advice is considered not-good-practice.

Why is Element.prototype undefined?

Surprisingly, this Apple page has Element.prototype equal to undefined, so I cannot use this awesome snippet of code.
Are there any reason for doing this?

Apple is using the Coherent JS framework which has this block of code:
// Trick picked up from Prototype to get around IE8's fixed Element & Event
(function() {
var element = this.Element;
this.Element = {};
Object.extend(this.Element, element || {});
}).call(window);
window.Element is originally a function, but it's being replaced and extended with a regular object. Only functions have .prototype properties.
Workaround:
The prototype chain for any HTML element seems to be:
Specific element type (HTMLBodyElement, HTMLDivElement, etc...)
HTMLElement
Element
Node
Object
You should be able to attach your referenced code to the prototype to any of the bold objects in the chain and get the style for an html element. I would not recommend this in production code as modifying objects like that is generally considered harmful, but if you are just trying to export a style from another website, it should work well enough.
Object.prototype.exportStyles = (function () { //Works if you use it on an element, the code will protect you from yourself if you try to use it on regular objects.
HTMLElement.prototype.exportStyles = (function () { //Safer because it is farther down the inheritance line, affecting fewer objects.
//Avoiding name collisions and other surprises.

In addition to what Dennis explained well, the easiest solution to avoid changing built-in objects (which people seem to love to do over and over, as Apple did on their site and Luc1245 did in the post you've mentioned).
A non-intrusive alternative is to run something like:
function exportStyles = ( function ( /* what Luc1245 posted */;
exportStyles.apply( /* this */ theElement, /* args */ []);

It seems that they have overwritten the default value of Element and assigned it the value of an object instance, which by default doesn't have the prototype property. Try the following in the console:
var a = {};
console.log(typeof a.prototype === 'undefined');
function abc() {}
Element = abc;
var b = new Element();
console.log(typeof b.prototype === 'undefined');
There isn't an universal reason to override built-in functions, so I'd guess it's probably because they thought it would make the most sense semantically (as it seems the Element object is used for DOM manipulation) and they don't have the possibility of conflicting with external libraries, which is why it's usually discouraged.

How to inherit from the DOM element class

I want to write some Javascript classes which extend DOM nodes (so that I can then insert instances of my class directly into the DOM), but am having difficulty finding out which class/prototype I should inherit from.
E.g.:
function myExtendedElement() {
this.superclass = ClassA;
this.superclass();
delete this.superclass;
}
But what should ClassA be?

It's not a good idea to do this.
First of all, to inherit from DOM element, you need to have access to that element's prototype. The problem is that not all browsers provide access to prototypes of DOM elements. Newer Gecko and WebKit -based clients, for example, expose some of these prototypes as global objects - HTMLDivElement, HTMLElement, Element, Node, etc.
For example, plain DIV element usually has a prototype chain similar to:
HTMLDivElement.prototype -> HTMLElement.prototype -> Element.prototype
-> Node.prototype -> Object.prototype -> null
You can access any of them and extend or inherit from as desired. But again, even though you can, I strongly advise not to.
When browser doesn't expose these prototypes, you're pretty much out of luck. You can try retrieving them by following constructor property of DOM element itself -
document.createElement('div').constructor;
- but then there's no guarantee that element has constructor property (e.g. IE6 doesn't) and even if it does, that this property references "correct" object. If, after all, constructor does reference correct object, there's still no guarantee that this objects is allowed to be augmented at all. The truth is that host objects are allowed to implement completely bizarre behavior and do not even have to follow rules that native JS objects follow (you can find dozens of such examples in real life).
Second reason you want to avoid inheriting from DOM element prototypes is that mechanism of such inheritance is not really specified anywhere; it could be quirky, unpredictable and overall fragile and unreliable.
Yes, you can create a constructor that would initialize objects with proper prototype chain (i.e. having DOM prototype in it):
function MyDivElement(){}
MyDivElement.prototype = HTMLDivElement.prototype;
var myDiv = new MyDivElement();
typeof myDiv.appendChild; // "function"
- but this is as much as it goes, and usefulness of this whole approach becomes limited by having certain methods in prototype and nothing else -
typeof myDivElement.nodeName; // "undefined"
myDivElement.innerHTML = '<span>foo<\/span>';
myDivElement.childNodes; // Error
Until some standard specifies exact mechanism for inheriting from DOM prototypes (and browsers actually implement that mechanism), it's best to leave them alone, and perhaps try alternative approach - e.g. wrapper or decorator patterns rather than prototype one :)

Old Q but there's a better answer than "Do" or "Don't" now that IE6 is mostly defunct. First of all prototyping core ECMA endpoint-inheritance constructors like 'Array' is pretty harmless and useful if you do it properly and test to avoid breaking existing methods. Definitely stay away from Object and think real hard before messing with Function, however.
If you're sharing code between a lot of people/authors, or dealing with DOM uncertainty, however, it's typically better to create adapter/wrapper objects with a new factory method to use in an inheritance-scheme.
In this case I wrote document.createExtEl to create wrapped DOM elements whose accessible properties are all available via prototype.
Using the following, your "superclass" for divs would be HTMLExtDivElement (in this case globally available - ew, but it's just an example). All references to the original HTMLElement instance's available properties live inside the wrapper's prototype. Note: some old IE properties can't be passed as references or even accessed without throwing errors (awesome), which is what the try/catch is for.
You could normalize common properties by adding logic to put missing or standardized properties in right after the loop wraps instance-available properties but I'll leave that to you.
Now for the love of Pete, don't ever use my code to write some cascading 16-times inheritance foolishness and then implement in some ironically popular library we're all forced to deal with or I will hunt you down and loudly quote "Design Patterns" at you while throwing rotten fruit.
//Implementation just like document.createElement()
//document.createExtEl('div').tagName === 'DIV'
document.createExtEl = ( function(){ //returns a function below
var htmlTags = ['div','a'], //... add all the element tags you care to make extendable here
constructorMap = {},
i = htmlTags.length;
while(i--){
thisTag = htmlTags[i].toLowerCase();
constructorMap[ thisTag ] = function(){
var elObj = document.createElement(thisTag),
thisProto = this.constructor.prototype,
constructorName = 'HTMLExt' + thisTag.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + thisTag.slice(1) + 'Element';
alert(constructorName);
window[constructorName] = this.constructor; //adds a global reference you can access the new constructor from.
for(var x in elObj){ try{ thisProto[x] = elObj[x]; } catch(e){} }
}
}
//all of the above executes once and returned function accesses via closure
return function(tagName){
return new constructorMap[tagName.toLowerCase()]();
}
} )()
//Now in the case of a superclass/constructor for div, you could use HTMLExtDivElement globally

In 2020, you can easily create a custom element by extending HTML elements.
class AppDrawer extends HTMLElement {...}
window.customElements.define('app-drawer', AppDrawer);
// Or use an anonymous class if you don't want a named constructor in current scope.
window.customElements.define('app-drawer', class extends HTMLElement {...});
More info and reference: Custom Elements

You can simply add new functions to the DOM prototypes, eg.
Element.prototype.myNameSpaceSomeFunction = function(...){...}
Then myNameSpaceSomeFunction will exist on all elements.

I've found a hack that works... at least, it enables me to access the extended object properties via the DOM element and vice versa. But it's hardly elegant.
var DOMelement = document.getElementById('myID'); // or $('#myID')[0]; in jQuery
DOMelement.extended = new extensionClass(this);
function extensionClass(element) {
this.element = element;
...
}