Understanding "Prototypes" in JavaScript(yehudakatz.com)

144 pointsby wycats15 lat temu9 comments

Understanding "Prototypes" in JavaScript

http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in-javascript/

4 comments

Cushman15 lat temu

Here's the part I don't get: `Object.create`, as it's defined there, is a long-winded, roundabout way of saying

    {__proto__: o}

People seem to think that this is functionality that was lacking from JavaScript; many of these same people have some inexplicable distaste for the (non-standard) `__proto__` property. What gives?

(Okay, technically it's {__proto__: o, constructor: function F() {}}...)

alunny15 lat temu

As I understand it, the main objection to `__proto__` is that it's writable, and thus not atomic with object creation. This creates a bunch of headaches for implementors for performance and security.

More knowledgable people than myself discuss it on this es-discuss thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06142....

There is a Harmony proposal for a "set prototype of operator" that would solve this problem; instead of writing:

    var newObj = {__proto__: OldObject, id: 5}

You would write:

    var newObj = OldObject <| { id: 5 }

Detailed here: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proto_operato...

Cushman15 lat temu

Yeah, I can understand how it makes implementors' lives easier... I just like it when they deal with annoying stuff so that I don't have to :)

I know people don't use mutable __proto__ for anything useful, but it does enable some neat tricks. Personally I wish implementors would embrace it and optimize for it rather than trying to make it go away.

As for the "prototype for" operator... that's disgusting.

shmageggy15 lat temu

I like how you illustrate in a clear way something that is unintuitive for people coming from a more traditional class-based background; the scoping of this.

It's easy to see how it applies locally to descendants of the original object, such as here:

  var person = Object.create(null);
  defineProperty(person, 'fullName', function() {
    return this.firstName + ' ' + this.lastName;
  });

where neither fullname nor person even have those properties, but their descendents do.

Cardinal15 lat temu

I have a Java background and I don't really use JavaScript, but I'd like to understand something :

var man = fromPrototype(person, { sex: "male" });

After this code runs, we have a reference to a function (man) inside which we declare an object (newObject) for which we define the new property (sex). That means we can now call newObject.sex

But later he's calling that property on the function itself : jeremy.sex

How is this possible?

cdsanchez15 lat temu

His example has an error. He forgot to return newObject at the end of the fromPrototype function. The fromPrototype function returns an instance (an object) that inherits from the given prototype and with the same properties you passed in with the object.

Cardinal15 lat temu

Thanks.

aes15 lat temu

It seems that fromPrototype is missing a line:

  return newObject;

'man' and 'jeremy' are objects, not functions.

wqfeng15 lat temu

I like the author's writing style very much. It's the best explanation on prototype I've ever read. His another article on this is great too.