OO JS in 15mins or Less(beardedocto.tumblr.com)
beardedocto.tumblr.com
OO JS in 15mins or Less
http://beardedocto.tumblr.com/post/21920818233/oo-js-in-15mins-or-less
35 comments
Agreed, anyone who uses this as the beginner tutorial it is will be confused for a long time by words like "copy" and "clone" used to mean variable assignment. This is terrible teaching, or somehow the author has an exotic mental model of what the computer is doing.
Agreed. I could see how that line could be confusing. Why don't we change it for the better in that case? How about something like this:
In the example above we create a new variable sally, and assign it the value bill. Both sally and bill reference the same spot in memory. As such we can't change bill out w/ out changing Sally, specifically when a change is made to an object literal it will affect that object across the entire script.
In the example above we create a new variable sally, and assign it the value bill. Both sally and bill reference the same spot in memory. As such we can't change bill out w/ out changing Sally, specifically when a change is made to an object literal it will affect that object across the entire script.
Today I learned that in ECMAScript5 (IE 9 onwards) there is also a function called Object.Create ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global... ) which can be used to copy objects. Kinda.
Something like that would be right.
How about: In the example above we create a new variable sally, and make it equal to bill. Both sally and bill now reference the same object in memory. Changes made via one affect both of them.
How about: In the example above we create a new variable sally, and make it equal to bill. Both sally and bill now reference the same object in memory. Changes made via one affect both of them.
Awesome, you rock! Officially updated the post w/ the above :)
Can you do better in a fifteen-minutes-or-less summary? Or at least point to a better one?
What about inheritance?
There is no zelda.prototype. It should have been:
Game.prototype.heartIt = function() {
console.log( "I heart " + this.title );
};
Thank you, corrected!
"Constructor notation is preferred when you need to set initial properties and methods on an object or you plan on creating multiple instances of an object where the properties and methods of each instance need to be unique."
Love it when they don't just tell you how to do something. Would like to see more people write on when you should use something.
Love it when they don't just tell you how to do something. Would like to see more people write on when you should use something.
> Love it when they don't just tell you how to do something.
Or why. None of the examples seem like constructors provide any advantage over literals.
Or why. None of the examples seem like constructors provide any advantage over literals.
So that the methods don't need to be re-defined for every object.
Folks might also be interested in this article on implementing other common design patterns in JavaScript － http://addyosmani.com/resources/essentialjsdesignpatterns/bo...
Thanks, I found this section from Addy on constructors helpful as well (to clear up some prototype confusion). http://addyosmani.com/resources/essentialjsdesignpatterns/bo...
Agreed, everything Addy does is amazing.
A small nit:
Specifically the sayName function was created in the global scope, so when it came across the statement this.name it looks in the global scope for the value of name.
It doesn't matter where a function is created, but it matters how it's called. A pretty simple example is that typing sayHello() by itself desugars to sayHello.call(window);, where window is the global scope[1]. JavaScript function invocation is fairly confusing until you learn the rules.
I also really liked Yehuda's JS prototypes article[2]. It really helped me understand them.
[1]: Except in JS strict mode apparently? I don't know too much about that. See http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/11/understanding-javascript-fu...
[2]: http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in...
Specifically the sayName function was created in the global scope, so when it came across the statement this.name it looks in the global scope for the value of name.
It doesn't matter where a function is created, but it matters how it's called. A pretty simple example is that typing sayHello() by itself desugars to sayHello.call(window);, where window is the global scope[1]. JavaScript function invocation is fairly confusing until you learn the rules.
I also really liked Yehuda's JS prototypes article[2]. It really helped me understand them.
[1]: Except in JS strict mode apparently? I don't know too much about that. See http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/11/understanding-javascript-fu...
[2]: http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in...
An OO JS tutorial should also include a discussion of the this pointer, and how it's not like other OO languages.
In JS, this reflects the context of the caller, not the object (which I think is messed up), so you have to learn call and apply.
In JS, this reflects the context of the caller, not the object (which I think is messed up), so you have to learn call and apply.
My first thought here was holy cow yes it should! My second though was ack, there's a lot to go over. Sounds like a good topic to cover in a second post. However if you see a way to nicely integrate into the current post in brevity I'm all ears and would be happy to update the post :) Thanks!
The problem is that in JavaScript functions (and, consequently, methods) are first-class citizens. If `this` reflected the value of the object, certain code would work oddly:
Another viable solution would be to have `this` passed into a method explicitly, like in Python. Then the expression `a.b()` could desugar to something like `a.b(a)` with `b` expecting `this` as its first argument. This also has some disadvantages. You could also do like Lua and have a separate syntax for calling methods this way (a:b()), but this is also confusing.
In short, there is no perfect solution.
var a = {fn : function () {this.doStuff()}},
b = {};
b.method = a.fn;// What now?
Another viable solution would be to have `this` passed into a method explicitly, like in Python. Then the expression `a.b()` could desugar to something like `a.b(a)` with `b` expecting `this` as its first argument. This also has some disadvantages. You could also do like Lua and have a separate syntax for calling methods this way (a:b()), but this is also confusing.
In short, there is no perfect solution.
This is yet another article on JS OOP that jumps straight to constructors without explaining the
fundamental concepts of prototypical inheritance.
Please take your time to understand how things really work, it will pay off in the future. A good starting point is http://killdream.github.com/blog/2011/10/understanding-javas...
Please take your time to understand how things really work, it will pay off in the future. A good starting point is http://killdream.github.com/blog/2011/10/understanding-javas...
A few days ago this guide appeared here in Hacker News: http://www.gabordemooij.com/articles/jsoop.html
I think that it is far better than this article.
I think that it is far better than this article.
yes. quote: "Note that we did not use a lot of confusing JS stuff: no this, no new, no prototype. Therefore this approach is not only easy, minimalist and elegant but it also works in the most ancient and exotic browsers."
This is the correct approach.
...not because those operators are bad, but because they _are_ confusing, and will confuse some people who work on the code base. Simple javascript is elegant and maintainable.
This is the correct approach.
...not because those operators are bad, but because they _are_ confusing, and will confuse some people who work on the code base. Simple javascript is elegant and maintainable.
This is okay, but you talk about "cloning" objects by giving them a different variable name, then you talk about constructors, and then you VERY briefly mention the "prototype" property -- which is actually the secret behind it all.
I feel like in any overview of JavaScript you HAVE to mention two things: 1) constructors aren't classes, they're non-magical functions (it's the "new" keyword that actually does the magic) and 2) inheritance works through a prototype chain, not through a class chain. Once you understand these two things (which will blow your mind) the rest is easy. (EDIT: okay, then there what "this" does in different contexts, but that's details)
This article is pretty elucidating: http://livingmachines.net/2009/02/creating-javascript-classe...
I feel like in any overview of JavaScript you HAVE to mention two things: 1) constructors aren't classes, they're non-magical functions (it's the "new" keyword that actually does the magic) and 2) inheritance works through a prototype chain, not through a class chain. Once you understand these two things (which will blow your mind) the rest is easy. (EDIT: okay, then there what "this" does in different contexts, but that's details)
This article is pretty elucidating: http://livingmachines.net/2009/02/creating-javascript-classe...
And in the code, there is only one instance. No copying has taken place, but there are two references to the same object.