How to instantiate a <code></code> element in JavaScript (NodeJS)? - javascript

The HTMLPreElement type in JavaScript produces a DOM element corresponding to the <pre> tag. Where is the type corresponding to <code>? It seems there should be an HTMLCodeElement type, but there isn't. How do I go about instantiating this in NodeJS JavaScript?

const c0d3 = document.createElement("code");
Object.getPrototypeOf(c0d3).constructor.toString();
//function(){return a.Reflect.construct(a.HTMLElement,[],this.constructor)}
At least on the browser side (Chrome, on node side you possibly have other workarounds to create mock DOM elements), it is not directly a distinct constructor, but rather a wrapper function that makes use of HTMLElement itself and another function this.constructor that is passed as an argument to Reflect.construct.
The old way of creating these native constructors are generally something like:
//Instances inherit from parent proto
HTMLSomeChildElementFunc.prototype = Object.create(HTMLSomeParentElementFunc.prototype);
//Statics are inherited on the constructor
Object.setPrototypeOf(HTMLSomeCHildElement, HTMLSomeParentElement);
In this case it is a bit different, they went for some sort of monkey patch.

Related

Why do some array methods rely on the global Array object?

I'm going through the MDN docs on arrays and when we want to test whether or not an object is an array we use isArray(). However, it's usage is very different to most of the other methods. When you use the regular syntax an error pops up:
console.log([1,2,3].isArray()); // TypeError: [1, 2, 3].isArray is not a function
Whereas this does work:
console.log(Array.isArray([1,2,3]))
I don't understand why isArray() (and a couple of other methods) rely upon some global object rather than just being accessible via the object in question. Why do some methods require the global array object?
rather than just being accessible via the object in question.
Because the whole purpose of Array.isArray is to be called on unknown objects. You don't know whether it's an array, you wouldn't know whether the method was accessible on it. The static method even works with values like null, which would inevitably throw an exception when you tried to invoke a method on them.
Digression:
isArray being callable as an instance method can work. In languages where everything is an object, like Smalltalk, Ruby or Io, even things like nil can have a isNil method. This approach has other problems of course, as with dynamic method dispatch every arbitrary object could overwrite the method and claim to be an array - on the other hand, that's exactly what we want for duck typing.
We could even simulate this in JS using Object.prototype.isArray = () => false; and Array.prototype.isArray = () => true;. Apart from failing on null and undefined, it still wouldn't work with objects that don't inherit from (our realm's) Object.prototype. And JavaScript "properties" that mix data fields and methods don't help either (consider the object parsed from the JSON string {"isArray":"maybe"}). We would always have to expect an exception from either .isArray not being a function, or from it being overwritten with a method that throws.
If we want to go for duck typing in JS, checking whether an object has an integer .length property is usually the way to go. Or more advanced, trying to follow the symbol-based iteration protocol. (That's what Array.from uses, for example).
But since arrays are a bit special in JS (with their magic .length property), we want a built-in reliable way to detect them, and that's what Array.isArray does.
Regarding other static Array methods: Array.of is pretty obvious, it's a factory function (like a constructor) and it can't be an instance method because there is no instance to work with in the first place. For Array.from the situation is a bit more like with isArray, a duck-typing Object.prototype.toArray approach could have worked as well but was dismissed for practical and design reasons.
See also Why were ES5 Object methods not added to Object.prototype?, Why use Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(myObj, prop) instead of myObj.hasOwnProperty(prop)? and Why is it Object.defineProperty() rather than this.defineProperty() (for objects)? for similar discussions.
.isArray() is a static method, it exists on the Array "class" but not on each particular instance. Static methods are called like this: Array.isArray(). Object.create() is another example.
Methods like .map or .slice are not static, so they exist on each instance of the Array "class".
Array (denoted with a captial "A") indicates the JavaScript native Array object. [...] represents an instance of an array. As with many languages, some properties/methods are static. That is, they don't exist on instances only the type. This is often done when the value of the property or behavior of the method doesn't vary from instance to instance, so there's no need for it to be "instance-specific". Figuring out if something is an array, doesn't change from instance to instance (and frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense to ask an array instance if it is an instance of an Array).

is there any way to create a javascript function like element.function(options)? [duplicate]

For example for this.parentNode I would like to just write this.p or instead of
document.getElementById('someid') just write document.g('someid'). Of course that are simple examples, I just want to know what is the correct way to do it.
(I know I can use jQuery or Prototype, but I'd like to learn how it is really done in JS)
Although you can prototype on the HTMLElement in many browsers - Internet Explorer (6,7,8) is NOT one of them. AFAIK, IE9 does support this (though I haven't tested it).
For browsers that do handle it, you can do:
HTMLElement.prototype.doHello = function(thing){
console.log(this + ' says: ' + thing)
}
document.body.doHello('hello')
I would strongly suggest not attempting to do this, for a few reasons:
Browser compatibility. While it is possible in several browsers, it isn't possible in IE <= 8.
DOM elements are host objects. Host objects (i.e. those provided by the environment that aren't native JavaScript objects) have no obligation to play by the same rules as native JavaScript objects and other than specified DOM behaviour can essentially do what they like. So, even if some browsers provide an HTMLElement prototype and allow you to augment it, there's no guarantee that it will work as you expect.
Compatibility with other code in your page. If any other code in your page (such as Prototype) messes with the HTMLElement prototype, you risk naming collisions and hard-to-detect bugs.
Instead, I would suggest creating wrapper objects around DOM nodes as jQuery, YUI and other libraries do.
Kangax has written a good article on DOM extensibility, covering all these points and more.
In a word, don't. It is best not to modify objects you don't own.
This is particularly true for HTMLElement, which you cannot modify in some browsers.
This article from perfectionkills.com will probably give you some insight into how it's done, and why you shouldn't do it.
(By the way, jQuery doesn't extend DOM elements. They use DOM wrappers instead.)
This might not be what you are looking for if you want to wrap a global object like document, but you can get a similar effect with custom-elements [1] [2] to create your own HTMLElement-like nodes.
create custom-element
add method to custom-element class
you can call the method
export class CustomElementInput extends HTMLElement {
log(){
alert("log")
}
// you can even overwrite methods like so
remove(){
alert("removing this node")
super.remove()
}
}
customElements.define("custom-element-input", CustomElementInput)
// somewhere else...
// in your HTML something like:
// <custom-element-input></custom-element-input>
const el = document.querySelector("custom-element-input")
el.log() // creates alert()

Best (most performant) way to declare (class) properties with unknown values in v8

So I learned a bit about the hidden class concept in v8. It is said that you should declare all properties in the constructor (if using prototype based "pseudo classes") and that you should not delete them or add new ones outside of the constructor. So far, so good.
1) But what about properties where you know the type (that you also shouldn't change) but not the (initial) value?
For example, is it sufficient to do something like this:
var Foo = function () {
this.myString;
this.myNumber;
}
... and assign concrete values later on, or would it be better to assign a "bogus" value upfront, like this:
var Foo = function () {
this.myString = "";
this.myNumber = 0;
}
2) Another thing is with objects. Sometimes I just know that an object wont have a fixed structure, but I want to use it as a hash map. Is there any (non verbose) way to tell the compiler I want to use it this way, so that it isn't optimized (and deopted later on)?
Update
Thanks for your input! So after reading your comments (and more on the internet) I consider these points as "best practices":
Do define all properties of a class in the constructor (also applies for defining simple objects)
You have to assign something to these properties, even if thats just null or undefined - just stating this.myString; is apparently not enough
Because you have to assign something anyways I think assigning a "bogus" value in case you can't assign the final value immediatly cannot hurt, so that the compiler does "know" ASAP what type you want to use. So, for example this.myString = "";
In case of objects, do assign the whole structure if you know it beforehand, and again assign dummy values to it's properties if you don't know them immediatly. Otherwise, for example when intending to use the Object as a hashmap, just do: this.myObject = {};. Think its not worth indicating to the compiler that this should be a hashmap. If you really want to do this, I found a trick that assigns a dummy property to this object and deletes it immediatly afterwards. But I won't do this.
As for smaller Arrays it's apparently recommended (reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJPdhx5zTaw&feature=youtu.be&t=25m40s) to preallocate them especially if you know the final size, so for example: this.myArray = new Array(4);
Don't delete properties later on! Just null them if needed
Don't change types after assigning! This will add another hidden class and hurt performance. I think thats best practice anyways. The only case where I have different types is for certain function arguments anyways. In that case I usually convert them to the same target type.
Same applies if you keep adding additional properties later on.
That being said, I also think doing this will lean to cleaner and more organized code, and also helps with documenting.
Yeah, so one little thing I am unsure remains: What if I define properties in a function (for example a kind of configure() method) called within the constructor?
Re 1): Just reading properties, like in your first snippet, does not do anything to the object. You need to assign them to create the properties.
But for object properties it doesn't actually matter much what values you initialise them with, as long as you do initialise them. Even undefined should be fine.
The concrete values are much more relevant for arrays, where you want to make sure to create them with the right elements (and without any holes!) because the VM tries to keep them homogeneous. In particular, never use the Array constructor, because that creates just holes.
Re 2): There are ways to trick the VM into using a dictionary representation, but they depend on VM and version and aren't really reliable. In general, it is best to avoid using objects as maps altogether. Since ES6, there is a proper Map class.

How to obtain true de-referenced object instances in javascript

I'm trying to get a better understanding of object oriented patterns in JavaScript. I particulary like the way EmberJS implements their classes with .extend and .create from Parent class Objects.
I've tried to implement a basic version of this on my own, but to no success, my newly instantiated Objects reference the same Object. I.e If I increment a private counter var in instance a via a public method, then separately do the same to instance b, b will reflect both increments.
I was able to achieve a de-referenced object via Object.create(myClass), however this is undesirable as I'd like to achieve this internally and also not rely on client support for that native method.
Here's a jsbin of what I've got: http://jsbin.com/zepaju/6/edit?js,console
Thanks for any help!
This is a pretty big subject, because there isn't a perfect way to make JavaScript work like Java-- you'll always have to invent some new coding idiom, and different people have different preferences.
Looking at your linked code, it's hard to be sure what you're gunning for but it looks like the problem is that you're thinking of an object's prototype as a "class", which is copied into each "instance" (like in Java)-- this isn't the case.
Your create() function is creating each "instance" by doing Object.create(Poll), which makes a new object with the Poll object as its prototype. When you refer to properties of the resulting objects, and those properties are not directly defined on the object, what you get is a reference to a property of the single Poll object.
The fact that you've sealed the Poll object's internal variables within a closure doesn't make any difference to this; the closure variables are hidden from the outside world, but they are accessible to the methods of the Poll object, and those methods are shared between all "instances".
If you want a function that spits out objects with a particular set of methods, and which hide their internal data in a closure, that might look like:
function Poll(challenger,incumbent) {
var challengerVotes=0;
var incumbentVotes=0;
return {
voteForChallenger: function() {challengerVotes++},
voteForIncumbent: function() {incumbentVotes++},
winner: function() {return challengerVotes>incumbentVotes ? challenger : incumbent}
}
}
var poll1 = Poll("Edward","Jacob");
var poll2 = Poll("Vanilla","Stilton");
poll1 and poll2 would not affect one another, and there would be no way to access the vote counts of either except through the supplied methods. I appreciate you're looking for a more generic approach but this is an example of how you might start.

How to add my own methods to HTMLElement object?

For example for this.parentNode I would like to just write this.p or instead of
document.getElementById('someid') just write document.g('someid'). Of course that are simple examples, I just want to know what is the correct way to do it.
(I know I can use jQuery or Prototype, but I'd like to learn how it is really done in JS)
Although you can prototype on the HTMLElement in many browsers - Internet Explorer (6,7,8) is NOT one of them. AFAIK, IE9 does support this (though I haven't tested it).
For browsers that do handle it, you can do:
HTMLElement.prototype.doHello = function(thing){
console.log(this + ' says: ' + thing)
}
document.body.doHello('hello')
I would strongly suggest not attempting to do this, for a few reasons:
Browser compatibility. While it is possible in several browsers, it isn't possible in IE <= 8.
DOM elements are host objects. Host objects (i.e. those provided by the environment that aren't native JavaScript objects) have no obligation to play by the same rules as native JavaScript objects and other than specified DOM behaviour can essentially do what they like. So, even if some browsers provide an HTMLElement prototype and allow you to augment it, there's no guarantee that it will work as you expect.
Compatibility with other code in your page. If any other code in your page (such as Prototype) messes with the HTMLElement prototype, you risk naming collisions and hard-to-detect bugs.
Instead, I would suggest creating wrapper objects around DOM nodes as jQuery, YUI and other libraries do.
Kangax has written a good article on DOM extensibility, covering all these points and more.
In a word, don't. It is best not to modify objects you don't own.
This is particularly true for HTMLElement, which you cannot modify in some browsers.
This article from perfectionkills.com will probably give you some insight into how it's done, and why you shouldn't do it.
(By the way, jQuery doesn't extend DOM elements. They use DOM wrappers instead.)
This might not be what you are looking for if you want to wrap a global object like document, but you can get a similar effect with custom-elements [1] [2] to create your own HTMLElement-like nodes.
create custom-element
add method to custom-element class
you can call the method
export class CustomElementInput extends HTMLElement {
log(){
alert("log")
}
// you can even overwrite methods like so
remove(){
alert("removing this node")
super.remove()
}
}
customElements.define("custom-element-input", CustomElementInput)
// somewhere else...
// in your HTML something like:
// <custom-element-input></custom-element-input>
const el = document.querySelector("custom-element-input")
el.log() // creates alert()

Categories

Resources