Related
In javascript, when would you want to use this:
(function(){
//Bunch of code...
})();
over this:
//Bunch of code...
It's all about variable scoping. Variables declared in the self executing function are, by default, only available to code within the self executing function. This allows code to be written without concern of how variables are named in other blocks of JavaScript code.
For example, as mentioned in a comment by Alexander:
(function() {
var foo = 3;
console.log(foo);
})();
console.log(foo);
This will first log 3 and then throw an error on the next console.log because foo is not defined.
Simplistic. So very normal looking, its almost comforting:
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
However, what if I include a really handy javascript library to my page that translates advanced characters into their base level representations?
Wait... what?
I mean, if someone types in a character with some kind of accent on it, but I only want 'English' characters A-Z in my program? Well... the Spanish 'ñ' and French 'é' characters can be translated into base characters of 'n' and 'e'.
So someone nice person has written a comprehensive character converter out there that I can include in my site... I include it.
One problem: it has a function in it called 'name' same as my function.
This is what's called a collision. We've got two functions declared in the same scope with the same name. We want to avoid this.
So we need to scope our code somehow.
The only way to scope code in javascript is to wrap it in a function:
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter library's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
That might solve our problem. Everything is now enclosed and can only be accessed from within our opening and closing braces.
We have a function in a function... which is weird to look at, but totally legal.
Only one problem. Our code doesn't work.
Our userName variable is never echoed into the console!
We can solve this issue by adding a call to our function after our existing code block...
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter libarary's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
main();
Or before!
main();
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter libarary's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
A secondary concern: What are the chances that the name 'main' hasn't been used yet? ...so very, very slim.
We need MORE scoping. And some way to automatically execute our main() function.
Now we come to auto-execution functions (or self-executing, self-running, whatever).
((){})();
The syntax is awkward as sin. However, it works.
When you wrap a function definition in parentheses, and include a parameter list (another set or parentheses!) it acts as a function call.
So lets look at our code again, with some self-executing syntax:
(function main() {
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
)();
So, in most tutorials you read, you will now be bombarded with the term 'anonymous self-executing' or something similar.
After many years of professional development, I strongly urge you to name every function you write for debugging purposes.
When something goes wrong (and it will), you will be checking the backtrace in your browser. It is always easier to narrow your code issues when the entries in the stack trace have names!
Self-invocation (also known as
auto-invocation) is when a function
executes immediately upon its
definition. This is a core pattern and
serves as the foundation for many
other patterns of JavaScript
development.
I am a great fan :) of it because:
It keeps code to a minimum
It enforces separation of behavior from presentation
It provides a closure which prevents naming conflicts
Enormously – (Why you should say its good?)
It’s about defining and executing a function all at once.
You could have that self-executing function return a value and pass the function as a param to another function.
It’s good for encapsulation.
It’s also good for block scoping.
Yeah, you can enclose all your .js files in a self-executing function and can prevent global namespace pollution. ;)
More here.
Namespacing. JavaScript's scopes are function-level.
I can't believe none of the answers mention implied globals.
The (function(){})() construct does not protect against implied globals, which to me is the bigger concern, see http://yuiblog.com/blog/2006/06/01/global-domination/
Basically the function block makes sure all the dependent "global vars" you defined are confined to your program, it does not protect you against defining implicit globals. JSHint or the like can provide recommendations on how to defend against this behavior.
The more concise var App = {} syntax provides a similar level of protection, and may be wrapped in the function block when on 'public' pages. (see Ember.js or SproutCore for real world examples of libraries that use this construct)
As far as private properties go, they are kind of overrated unless you are creating a public framework or library, but if you need to implement them, Douglas Crockford has some good ideas.
I've read all answers, something very important is missing here, I'll KISS. There are 2 main reasons, why I need Self-Executing Anonymous Functions, or better said "Immediately-Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)":
Better namespace management (Avoiding Namespace Pollution -> JS Module)
Closures (Simulating Private Class Members, as known from OOP)
The first one has been explained very well. For the second one, please study following example:
var MyClosureObject = (function (){
var MyName = 'Michael Jackson RIP';
return {
getMyName: function () { return MyName;},
setMyName: function (name) { MyName = name}
}
}());
Attention 1: We are not assigning a function to MyClosureObject, further more the result of invoking that function. Be aware of () in the last line.
Attention 2: What do you additionally have to know about functions in Javascript is that the inner functions get access to the parameters and variables of the functions, they are defined within.
Let us try some experiments:
I can get MyName using getMyName and it works:
console.log(MyClosureObject.getMyName());
// Michael Jackson RIP
The following ingenuous approach would not work:
console.log(MyClosureObject.MyName);
// undefined
But I can set an another name and get the expected result:
MyClosureObject.setMyName('George Michael RIP');
console.log(MyClosureObject.getMyName());
// George Michael RIP
Edit: In the example above MyClosureObject is designed to be used without the newprefix, therefore by convention it should not be capitalized.
Scope isolation, maybe. So that the variables inside the function declaration don't pollute the outer namespace.
Of course, on half the JS implementations out there, they will anyway.
Is there a parameter and the "Bunch of code" returns a function?
var a = function(x) { return function() { document.write(x); } }(something);
Closure. The value of something gets used by the function assigned to a. something could have some varying value (for loop) and every time a has a new function.
Here's a solid example of how a self invoking anonymous function could be useful.
for( var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i)
})
}
Output: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10...
for( var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
(function(num){
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(num)
})
})(i)
}
Output: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...
Short answer is : to prevent pollution of the Global (or higher) scope.
IIFE (Immediately Invoked Function Expressions) is the best practice for writing scripts as plug-ins, add-ons, user scripts or whatever scripts are expected to work with other people's scripts. This ensures that any variable you define does not give undesired effects on other scripts.
This is the other way to write IIFE expression. I personally prefer this following method:
void function() {
console.log('boo!');
// expected output: "boo!"
}();
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/void
From the example above it is very clear that IIFE can also affect efficiency and performance, because the function that is expected to be run only once will be executed once and then dumped into the void for good. This means that function or method declaration does not remain in memory.
One difference is that the variables that you declare in the function are local, so they go away when you exit the function and they don't conflict with other variables in other or same code.
First you must visit MDN IIFE , Now some points about this
this is Immediately Invoked Function Expression. So when your javascript file invoked from HTML this function called immediately.
This prevents accessing variables within the IIFE idiom as well as polluting the global scope.
Self executing function are used to manage the scope of a Variable.
The scope of a variable is the region of your program in which it is defined.
A global variable has global scope; it is defined everywhere in your JavaScript code and can be accessed from anywhere within the script, even in your functions. On the other hand, variables declared within a function are defined only within the body of the function.
They are local variables, have local scope and can only be accessed within that function. Function parameters also count as local variables and are defined only within the body of the function.
As shown below, you can access the global variables variable inside your function and also note that within the body of a function, a local variable takes precedence over a global variable with the same name.
var globalvar = "globalvar"; // this var can be accessed anywhere within the script
function scope() {
alert(globalvar);
var localvar = "localvar"; //can only be accessed within the function scope
}
scope();
So basically a self executing function allows code to be written without concern of how variables are named in other blocks of javascript code.
Since functions in Javascript are first-class object, by defining it that way, it effectively defines a "class" much like C++ or C#.
That function can define local variables, and have functions within it. The internal functions (effectively instance methods) will have access to the local variables (effectively instance variables), but they will be isolated from the rest of the script.
Self invoked function in javascript:
A self-invoking expression is invoked (started) automatically, without being called. A self-invoking expression is invoked right after its created. This is basically used for avoiding naming conflict as well as for achieving encapsulation. The variables or declared objects are not accessible outside this function. For avoiding the problems of minimization(filename.min) always use self executed function.
(function(){
var foo = {
name: 'bob'
};
console.log(foo.name); // bob
})();
console.log(foo.name); // Reference error
Actually, the above function will be treated as function expression without a name.
The main purpose of wrapping a function with close and open parenthesis is to avoid polluting the global space.
The variables and functions inside the function expression became private (i.e) they will not be available outside of the function.
Given your simple question: "In javascript, when would you want to use this:..."
I like #ken_browning and #sean_holding's answers, but here's another use-case that I don't see mentioned:
let red_tree = new Node(10);
(async function () {
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
await red_tree.insert(i);
}
})();
console.log('----->red_tree.printInOrder():', red_tree.printInOrder());
where Node.insert is some asynchronous action.
I can't just call await without the async keyword at the declaration of my function, and i don't need a named function for later use, but need to await that insert call or i need some other richer features (who knows?).
It looks like this question has been answered all ready, but I'll post my input anyway.
I know when I like to use self-executing functions.
var myObject = {
childObject: new function(){
// bunch of code
},
objVar1: <value>,
objVar2: <value>
}
The function allows me to use some extra code to define the childObjects attributes and properties for cleaner code, such as setting commonly used variables or executing mathematic equations; Oh! or error checking. as opposed to being limited to nested object instantiation syntax of...
object: {
childObject: {
childObject: {<value>, <value>, <value>}
},
objVar1: <value>,
objVar2: <value>
}
Coding in general has a lot of obscure ways of doing a lot of the same things, making you wonder, "Why bother?" But new situations keep popping up where you can no longer rely on basic/core principals alone.
You can use this function to return values :
var Test = (function (){
const alternative = function(){ return 'Error Get Function '},
methods = {
GetName: alternative,
GetAge:alternative
}
// If the condition is not met, the default text will be returned
// replace to 55 < 44
if( 55 > 44){
// Function one
methods.GetName = function (name) {
return name;
};
// Function Two
methods.GetAge = function (age) {
return age;
};
}
return methods;
}());
// Call
console.log( Test.GetName("Yehia") );
console.log( Test.GetAge(66) );
Use of this methodology is for closures. Read this link for more about closures.
IIRC it allows you to create private properties and methods.
Recently I was debugging a bit of code that one of my coworkers wrote and found something along the lines of this within a conditional, inside of a larger function.
(function(foo){
...
console.log(foo);
...
})();
So it looks like this very boiled down
function display(db, user, foo) {
if (isValid(db, user) {
(function(foo){
console.log(foo);
})();
}
...
}
Originally it didn't have (); at the end so to my understanding it wasn't even being called but to my broader question, what's the difference between that and something like below? I've seen this syntax a few times but I don't understand how above would be useful for this purpose. My understanding would reason that this just adds unnecessary complexity. Someone please enlighten me!
function display(db, user, foo) {
if (isValid(db, user) {
// without abstract function
console.log(foo);
}
...
}
Thanks :-)
With such a simple example, there is no reason to use an anonymous function like this in node.js or any other JavaScript environment when the inner function could be called directly instead.
When conducting reviews, I often will assume that any console.log (or choose-your-language logging) is accidental. If the surrounding source doesn't do anything of value itself, it is likely only intended to support a (possibly-out-of-date) console.log during development and debugging.
Because JavaScript is single-threaded, constructing an anonymous function of this sort is strictly for scoping. In the case of the original source that didn't have the execution (i.e. it was missing the ()), this is actually a way to "hide" debug code from the runtime while leaving it in-place if a step-through debug ever needed it.
When debugging, it's as easy as adding the ('isValid succeeded') to have it execute all the source inside.
(function(foo){
console.log(foo);
})( /* You're missing a parameter value here; will print 'undefined'. */ );
Sometimes you use an anonymous function to limit the scope of your code. It may come handy if you do not want to pollute the global scope with your variables. Also, it makes dependency injection for testing easier.
Consider the following examples:
var a = 2, b = 3;
function print(x)
{
console.log('x= ', x);
}
print(a+b);
In the above example, the a, b, and print now belongs to the window object. When your code grows it becomes difficult to keep track and avoid of name collisions. The problem becomes even more severe if you are using 3rd party libs etc.
In the example below, your code is wrapped in an anonymous function protecting the global scope. You can also pass parameters to the anonymous function
(function(localParam){
var a = 2, b = 3;
function print(x)
{
console.log('x= ', x);
}
print(a+b);
//also
console.log(localParam); // = safe way to access and global variables
})(globalParam);
In javascript, when would you want to use this:
(function(){
//Bunch of code...
})();
over this:
//Bunch of code...
It's all about variable scoping. Variables declared in the self executing function are, by default, only available to code within the self executing function. This allows code to be written without concern of how variables are named in other blocks of JavaScript code.
For example, as mentioned in a comment by Alexander:
(function() {
var foo = 3;
console.log(foo);
})();
console.log(foo);
This will first log 3 and then throw an error on the next console.log because foo is not defined.
Simplistic. So very normal looking, its almost comforting:
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
However, what if I include a really handy javascript library to my page that translates advanced characters into their base level representations?
Wait... what?
I mean, if someone types in a character with some kind of accent on it, but I only want 'English' characters A-Z in my program? Well... the Spanish 'ñ' and French 'é' characters can be translated into base characters of 'n' and 'e'.
So someone nice person has written a comprehensive character converter out there that I can include in my site... I include it.
One problem: it has a function in it called 'name' same as my function.
This is what's called a collision. We've got two functions declared in the same scope with the same name. We want to avoid this.
So we need to scope our code somehow.
The only way to scope code in javascript is to wrap it in a function:
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter library's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
That might solve our problem. Everything is now enclosed and can only be accessed from within our opening and closing braces.
We have a function in a function... which is weird to look at, but totally legal.
Only one problem. Our code doesn't work.
Our userName variable is never echoed into the console!
We can solve this issue by adding a call to our function after our existing code block...
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter libarary's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
main();
Or before!
main();
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter libarary's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
A secondary concern: What are the chances that the name 'main' hasn't been used yet? ...so very, very slim.
We need MORE scoping. And some way to automatically execute our main() function.
Now we come to auto-execution functions (or self-executing, self-running, whatever).
((){})();
The syntax is awkward as sin. However, it works.
When you wrap a function definition in parentheses, and include a parameter list (another set or parentheses!) it acts as a function call.
So lets look at our code again, with some self-executing syntax:
(function main() {
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
)();
So, in most tutorials you read, you will now be bombarded with the term 'anonymous self-executing' or something similar.
After many years of professional development, I strongly urge you to name every function you write for debugging purposes.
When something goes wrong (and it will), you will be checking the backtrace in your browser. It is always easier to narrow your code issues when the entries in the stack trace have names!
Self-invocation (also known as
auto-invocation) is when a function
executes immediately upon its
definition. This is a core pattern and
serves as the foundation for many
other patterns of JavaScript
development.
I am a great fan :) of it because:
It keeps code to a minimum
It enforces separation of behavior from presentation
It provides a closure which prevents naming conflicts
Enormously – (Why you should say its good?)
It’s about defining and executing a function all at once.
You could have that self-executing function return a value and pass the function as a param to another function.
It’s good for encapsulation.
It’s also good for block scoping.
Yeah, you can enclose all your .js files in a self-executing function and can prevent global namespace pollution. ;)
More here.
Namespacing. JavaScript's scopes are function-level.
I can't believe none of the answers mention implied globals.
The (function(){})() construct does not protect against implied globals, which to me is the bigger concern, see http://yuiblog.com/blog/2006/06/01/global-domination/
Basically the function block makes sure all the dependent "global vars" you defined are confined to your program, it does not protect you against defining implicit globals. JSHint or the like can provide recommendations on how to defend against this behavior.
The more concise var App = {} syntax provides a similar level of protection, and may be wrapped in the function block when on 'public' pages. (see Ember.js or SproutCore for real world examples of libraries that use this construct)
As far as private properties go, they are kind of overrated unless you are creating a public framework or library, but if you need to implement them, Douglas Crockford has some good ideas.
I've read all answers, something very important is missing here, I'll KISS. There are 2 main reasons, why I need Self-Executing Anonymous Functions, or better said "Immediately-Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)":
Better namespace management (Avoiding Namespace Pollution -> JS Module)
Closures (Simulating Private Class Members, as known from OOP)
The first one has been explained very well. For the second one, please study following example:
var MyClosureObject = (function (){
var MyName = 'Michael Jackson RIP';
return {
getMyName: function () { return MyName;},
setMyName: function (name) { MyName = name}
}
}());
Attention 1: We are not assigning a function to MyClosureObject, further more the result of invoking that function. Be aware of () in the last line.
Attention 2: What do you additionally have to know about functions in Javascript is that the inner functions get access to the parameters and variables of the functions, they are defined within.
Let us try some experiments:
I can get MyName using getMyName and it works:
console.log(MyClosureObject.getMyName());
// Michael Jackson RIP
The following ingenuous approach would not work:
console.log(MyClosureObject.MyName);
// undefined
But I can set an another name and get the expected result:
MyClosureObject.setMyName('George Michael RIP');
console.log(MyClosureObject.getMyName());
// George Michael RIP
Edit: In the example above MyClosureObject is designed to be used without the newprefix, therefore by convention it should not be capitalized.
Scope isolation, maybe. So that the variables inside the function declaration don't pollute the outer namespace.
Of course, on half the JS implementations out there, they will anyway.
Is there a parameter and the "Bunch of code" returns a function?
var a = function(x) { return function() { document.write(x); } }(something);
Closure. The value of something gets used by the function assigned to a. something could have some varying value (for loop) and every time a has a new function.
Here's a solid example of how a self invoking anonymous function could be useful.
for( var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i)
})
}
Output: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10...
for( var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
(function(num){
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(num)
})
})(i)
}
Output: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...
Short answer is : to prevent pollution of the Global (or higher) scope.
IIFE (Immediately Invoked Function Expressions) is the best practice for writing scripts as plug-ins, add-ons, user scripts or whatever scripts are expected to work with other people's scripts. This ensures that any variable you define does not give undesired effects on other scripts.
This is the other way to write IIFE expression. I personally prefer this following method:
void function() {
console.log('boo!');
// expected output: "boo!"
}();
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/void
From the example above it is very clear that IIFE can also affect efficiency and performance, because the function that is expected to be run only once will be executed once and then dumped into the void for good. This means that function or method declaration does not remain in memory.
One difference is that the variables that you declare in the function are local, so they go away when you exit the function and they don't conflict with other variables in other or same code.
First you must visit MDN IIFE , Now some points about this
this is Immediately Invoked Function Expression. So when your javascript file invoked from HTML this function called immediately.
This prevents accessing variables within the IIFE idiom as well as polluting the global scope.
Self executing function are used to manage the scope of a Variable.
The scope of a variable is the region of your program in which it is defined.
A global variable has global scope; it is defined everywhere in your JavaScript code and can be accessed from anywhere within the script, even in your functions. On the other hand, variables declared within a function are defined only within the body of the function.
They are local variables, have local scope and can only be accessed within that function. Function parameters also count as local variables and are defined only within the body of the function.
As shown below, you can access the global variables variable inside your function and also note that within the body of a function, a local variable takes precedence over a global variable with the same name.
var globalvar = "globalvar"; // this var can be accessed anywhere within the script
function scope() {
alert(globalvar);
var localvar = "localvar"; //can only be accessed within the function scope
}
scope();
So basically a self executing function allows code to be written without concern of how variables are named in other blocks of javascript code.
Since functions in Javascript are first-class object, by defining it that way, it effectively defines a "class" much like C++ or C#.
That function can define local variables, and have functions within it. The internal functions (effectively instance methods) will have access to the local variables (effectively instance variables), but they will be isolated from the rest of the script.
Self invoked function in javascript:
A self-invoking expression is invoked (started) automatically, without being called. A self-invoking expression is invoked right after its created. This is basically used for avoiding naming conflict as well as for achieving encapsulation. The variables or declared objects are not accessible outside this function. For avoiding the problems of minimization(filename.min) always use self executed function.
(function(){
var foo = {
name: 'bob'
};
console.log(foo.name); // bob
})();
console.log(foo.name); // Reference error
Actually, the above function will be treated as function expression without a name.
The main purpose of wrapping a function with close and open parenthesis is to avoid polluting the global space.
The variables and functions inside the function expression became private (i.e) they will not be available outside of the function.
Given your simple question: "In javascript, when would you want to use this:..."
I like #ken_browning and #sean_holding's answers, but here's another use-case that I don't see mentioned:
let red_tree = new Node(10);
(async function () {
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
await red_tree.insert(i);
}
})();
console.log('----->red_tree.printInOrder():', red_tree.printInOrder());
where Node.insert is some asynchronous action.
I can't just call await without the async keyword at the declaration of my function, and i don't need a named function for later use, but need to await that insert call or i need some other richer features (who knows?).
It looks like this question has been answered all ready, but I'll post my input anyway.
I know when I like to use self-executing functions.
var myObject = {
childObject: new function(){
// bunch of code
},
objVar1: <value>,
objVar2: <value>
}
The function allows me to use some extra code to define the childObjects attributes and properties for cleaner code, such as setting commonly used variables or executing mathematic equations; Oh! or error checking. as opposed to being limited to nested object instantiation syntax of...
object: {
childObject: {
childObject: {<value>, <value>, <value>}
},
objVar1: <value>,
objVar2: <value>
}
Coding in general has a lot of obscure ways of doing a lot of the same things, making you wonder, "Why bother?" But new situations keep popping up where you can no longer rely on basic/core principals alone.
You can use this function to return values :
var Test = (function (){
const alternative = function(){ return 'Error Get Function '},
methods = {
GetName: alternative,
GetAge:alternative
}
// If the condition is not met, the default text will be returned
// replace to 55 < 44
if( 55 > 44){
// Function one
methods.GetName = function (name) {
return name;
};
// Function Two
methods.GetAge = function (age) {
return age;
};
}
return methods;
}());
// Call
console.log( Test.GetName("Yehia") );
console.log( Test.GetAge(66) );
Use of this methodology is for closures. Read this link for more about closures.
IIRC it allows you to create private properties and methods.
In javascript, when would you want to use this:
(function(){
//Bunch of code...
})();
over this:
//Bunch of code...
It's all about variable scoping. Variables declared in the self executing function are, by default, only available to code within the self executing function. This allows code to be written without concern of how variables are named in other blocks of JavaScript code.
For example, as mentioned in a comment by Alexander:
(function() {
var foo = 3;
console.log(foo);
})();
console.log(foo);
This will first log 3 and then throw an error on the next console.log because foo is not defined.
Simplistic. So very normal looking, its almost comforting:
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
However, what if I include a really handy javascript library to my page that translates advanced characters into their base level representations?
Wait... what?
I mean, if someone types in a character with some kind of accent on it, but I only want 'English' characters A-Z in my program? Well... the Spanish 'ñ' and French 'é' characters can be translated into base characters of 'n' and 'e'.
So someone nice person has written a comprehensive character converter out there that I can include in my site... I include it.
One problem: it has a function in it called 'name' same as my function.
This is what's called a collision. We've got two functions declared in the same scope with the same name. We want to avoid this.
So we need to scope our code somehow.
The only way to scope code in javascript is to wrap it in a function:
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter library's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
That might solve our problem. Everything is now enclosed and can only be accessed from within our opening and closing braces.
We have a function in a function... which is weird to look at, but totally legal.
Only one problem. Our code doesn't work.
Our userName variable is never echoed into the console!
We can solve this issue by adding a call to our function after our existing code block...
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter libarary's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
main();
Or before!
main();
function main() {
// We are now in our own sound-proofed room and the
// character-converter libarary's name() function can exist at the
// same time as ours.
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
A secondary concern: What are the chances that the name 'main' hasn't been used yet? ...so very, very slim.
We need MORE scoping. And some way to automatically execute our main() function.
Now we come to auto-execution functions (or self-executing, self-running, whatever).
((){})();
The syntax is awkward as sin. However, it works.
When you wrap a function definition in parentheses, and include a parameter list (another set or parentheses!) it acts as a function call.
So lets look at our code again, with some self-executing syntax:
(function main() {
var userName = "Sean";
console.log(name());
function name() {
return userName;
}
}
)();
So, in most tutorials you read, you will now be bombarded with the term 'anonymous self-executing' or something similar.
After many years of professional development, I strongly urge you to name every function you write for debugging purposes.
When something goes wrong (and it will), you will be checking the backtrace in your browser. It is always easier to narrow your code issues when the entries in the stack trace have names!
Self-invocation (also known as
auto-invocation) is when a function
executes immediately upon its
definition. This is a core pattern and
serves as the foundation for many
other patterns of JavaScript
development.
I am a great fan :) of it because:
It keeps code to a minimum
It enforces separation of behavior from presentation
It provides a closure which prevents naming conflicts
Enormously – (Why you should say its good?)
It’s about defining and executing a function all at once.
You could have that self-executing function return a value and pass the function as a param to another function.
It’s good for encapsulation.
It’s also good for block scoping.
Yeah, you can enclose all your .js files in a self-executing function and can prevent global namespace pollution. ;)
More here.
Namespacing. JavaScript's scopes are function-level.
I can't believe none of the answers mention implied globals.
The (function(){})() construct does not protect against implied globals, which to me is the bigger concern, see http://yuiblog.com/blog/2006/06/01/global-domination/
Basically the function block makes sure all the dependent "global vars" you defined are confined to your program, it does not protect you against defining implicit globals. JSHint or the like can provide recommendations on how to defend against this behavior.
The more concise var App = {} syntax provides a similar level of protection, and may be wrapped in the function block when on 'public' pages. (see Ember.js or SproutCore for real world examples of libraries that use this construct)
As far as private properties go, they are kind of overrated unless you are creating a public framework or library, but if you need to implement them, Douglas Crockford has some good ideas.
I've read all answers, something very important is missing here, I'll KISS. There are 2 main reasons, why I need Self-Executing Anonymous Functions, or better said "Immediately-Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)":
Better namespace management (Avoiding Namespace Pollution -> JS Module)
Closures (Simulating Private Class Members, as known from OOP)
The first one has been explained very well. For the second one, please study following example:
var MyClosureObject = (function (){
var MyName = 'Michael Jackson RIP';
return {
getMyName: function () { return MyName;},
setMyName: function (name) { MyName = name}
}
}());
Attention 1: We are not assigning a function to MyClosureObject, further more the result of invoking that function. Be aware of () in the last line.
Attention 2: What do you additionally have to know about functions in Javascript is that the inner functions get access to the parameters and variables of the functions, they are defined within.
Let us try some experiments:
I can get MyName using getMyName and it works:
console.log(MyClosureObject.getMyName());
// Michael Jackson RIP
The following ingenuous approach would not work:
console.log(MyClosureObject.MyName);
// undefined
But I can set an another name and get the expected result:
MyClosureObject.setMyName('George Michael RIP');
console.log(MyClosureObject.getMyName());
// George Michael RIP
Edit: In the example above MyClosureObject is designed to be used without the newprefix, therefore by convention it should not be capitalized.
Scope isolation, maybe. So that the variables inside the function declaration don't pollute the outer namespace.
Of course, on half the JS implementations out there, they will anyway.
Is there a parameter and the "Bunch of code" returns a function?
var a = function(x) { return function() { document.write(x); } }(something);
Closure. The value of something gets used by the function assigned to a. something could have some varying value (for loop) and every time a has a new function.
Here's a solid example of how a self invoking anonymous function could be useful.
for( var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i)
})
}
Output: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10...
for( var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
(function(num){
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(num)
})
})(i)
}
Output: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...
Short answer is : to prevent pollution of the Global (or higher) scope.
IIFE (Immediately Invoked Function Expressions) is the best practice for writing scripts as plug-ins, add-ons, user scripts or whatever scripts are expected to work with other people's scripts. This ensures that any variable you define does not give undesired effects on other scripts.
This is the other way to write IIFE expression. I personally prefer this following method:
void function() {
console.log('boo!');
// expected output: "boo!"
}();
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/void
From the example above it is very clear that IIFE can also affect efficiency and performance, because the function that is expected to be run only once will be executed once and then dumped into the void for good. This means that function or method declaration does not remain in memory.
One difference is that the variables that you declare in the function are local, so they go away when you exit the function and they don't conflict with other variables in other or same code.
First you must visit MDN IIFE , Now some points about this
this is Immediately Invoked Function Expression. So when your javascript file invoked from HTML this function called immediately.
This prevents accessing variables within the IIFE idiom as well as polluting the global scope.
Self executing function are used to manage the scope of a Variable.
The scope of a variable is the region of your program in which it is defined.
A global variable has global scope; it is defined everywhere in your JavaScript code and can be accessed from anywhere within the script, even in your functions. On the other hand, variables declared within a function are defined only within the body of the function.
They are local variables, have local scope and can only be accessed within that function. Function parameters also count as local variables and are defined only within the body of the function.
As shown below, you can access the global variables variable inside your function and also note that within the body of a function, a local variable takes precedence over a global variable with the same name.
var globalvar = "globalvar"; // this var can be accessed anywhere within the script
function scope() {
alert(globalvar);
var localvar = "localvar"; //can only be accessed within the function scope
}
scope();
So basically a self executing function allows code to be written without concern of how variables are named in other blocks of javascript code.
Since functions in Javascript are first-class object, by defining it that way, it effectively defines a "class" much like C++ or C#.
That function can define local variables, and have functions within it. The internal functions (effectively instance methods) will have access to the local variables (effectively instance variables), but they will be isolated from the rest of the script.
Self invoked function in javascript:
A self-invoking expression is invoked (started) automatically, without being called. A self-invoking expression is invoked right after its created. This is basically used for avoiding naming conflict as well as for achieving encapsulation. The variables or declared objects are not accessible outside this function. For avoiding the problems of minimization(filename.min) always use self executed function.
(function(){
var foo = {
name: 'bob'
};
console.log(foo.name); // bob
})();
console.log(foo.name); // Reference error
Actually, the above function will be treated as function expression without a name.
The main purpose of wrapping a function with close and open parenthesis is to avoid polluting the global space.
The variables and functions inside the function expression became private (i.e) they will not be available outside of the function.
Given your simple question: "In javascript, when would you want to use this:..."
I like #ken_browning and #sean_holding's answers, but here's another use-case that I don't see mentioned:
let red_tree = new Node(10);
(async function () {
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
await red_tree.insert(i);
}
})();
console.log('----->red_tree.printInOrder():', red_tree.printInOrder());
where Node.insert is some asynchronous action.
I can't just call await without the async keyword at the declaration of my function, and i don't need a named function for later use, but need to await that insert call or i need some other richer features (who knows?).
It looks like this question has been answered all ready, but I'll post my input anyway.
I know when I like to use self-executing functions.
var myObject = {
childObject: new function(){
// bunch of code
},
objVar1: <value>,
objVar2: <value>
}
The function allows me to use some extra code to define the childObjects attributes and properties for cleaner code, such as setting commonly used variables or executing mathematic equations; Oh! or error checking. as opposed to being limited to nested object instantiation syntax of...
object: {
childObject: {
childObject: {<value>, <value>, <value>}
},
objVar1: <value>,
objVar2: <value>
}
Coding in general has a lot of obscure ways of doing a lot of the same things, making you wonder, "Why bother?" But new situations keep popping up where you can no longer rely on basic/core principals alone.
You can use this function to return values :
var Test = (function (){
const alternative = function(){ return 'Error Get Function '},
methods = {
GetName: alternative,
GetAge:alternative
}
// If the condition is not met, the default text will be returned
// replace to 55 < 44
if( 55 > 44){
// Function one
methods.GetName = function (name) {
return name;
};
// Function Two
methods.GetAge = function (age) {
return age;
};
}
return methods;
}());
// Call
console.log( Test.GetName("Yehia") );
console.log( Test.GetAge(66) );
Use of this methodology is for closures. Read this link for more about closures.
IIRC it allows you to create private properties and methods.
I've read all over the place that global variables are bad and alternatives should be used. In Javascript specifically, what solution should I choose.
I'm thinking of a function, that when fed two arguments (function globalVariables(Variable,Value)) looks if Variable exists in a local array and if it does set it's value to Value, else, Variable and Value are appended. If the function is called without arguments (function globalVariables()) it returns the array. Perhaps if the function is fired with just one argument (function globalVariables(Variable)) it returns the value of Variable in the array.
What do you think? I'd like to hear your alternative solutions and arguments for using global variables.
How you would use globalVariables();
function append(){
globalVariables("variable1","value1"); //globalVariables() would append variable1 to it's local array.
};
function retrieve(){
var localVariable1 = globalVariables("variable1"); //globalVariables() would return "value1".
};
function retrieveAll(){
var localVariable1 = globalVariables(); //globalVariables() would return the globalVariable()'s entire, local [persistently stored between calls] array.
};
function set(){
globalVariables("variable1","value2"); //globalVariables() would set variable1 to "value2".
};
Is this a Singleton Pattern BTW?
In this specific scenario a function may set a variable at one point in time, and much later another function, maybe when a user submits a form, will need to get that variable. Therefore the first function couldn't pass the variable as an argument to the later function as it would never be called from the first.
Thank you, I appreciate all your help!
The primary reason why global variables are discouraged in javascript is because, in javascript all code share a single global namespace, also javascript has implied global variables ie. variables which are not explicitly declared in local scope are automatically added to global namespace. Relying too much on global variables can result in collisions between various scripts on the same page (read Douglas Crockford's articles).
One way to reduce global variables is to use the YUI module pattern. The basic idea is to wrap all your code in a function that returns an object which contains functions that needs to be accessed outside your module and assign the return value to a single global variable.
var FOO = (function() {
var my_var = 10; //shared variable available only inside your module
function bar() { // this function not available outside your module
alert(my_var); // this function can access my_var
}
return {
a_func: function() {
alert(my_var); // this function can access my_var
},
b_func: function() {
alert(my_var); // this function can also access my_var
}
};
})();
now to use functions in your module elsewhere, use FOO.a_func(). This way to resolve global namespace conflicts you only need to change the name of FOO.
Semantics my boy. Semantics.
Start with one global: myApp = {};
Everything should be in that. The only exception would be your AJAX library (there are some extreme exceptions like working with JSONP callbacks).
There should be very few properties in myApp. You'll want to hold your application properties in containers such as config or settings.
myApp = {
config:{
prop:1
},
settings:{
prop:2
},
widgets:{
List: function(props){},
Item: function(props){}
}
}
Then you may have more properties in lower modules, components, singletons and Class constructors (widgets).
This setup gives you the added benefit of being able to access any property from any other location since you can get it with the myApp global. However, you should use "this" whenever possible because the lookup is faster. And just set the property directly, don't bother with the pseudo getter/setter stuff. If you really need a getter/setter, code it for that specific use.
The reason your example doesn't work is it's too generic and you seem to be looking for an excuse to work in the global space.
And don't get clever with private variables. They're bad too:
http://clubajax.org/javascript-private-variables-are-evil/
Global state causes problems in several areas. One is code reuse. When you access some global state that means the component must be aware of it's environment(something outside of itself). You should avoid this as much as possible, because it makes the component unpredictable.
Say I have an object that accesses your globalVariables function and I want to use it in another page. How do I know to define the globalVariables object or even how to define it? However if you can pass the information into a constructor or as an argument to a function then I can easily determine what is required by the object.
Also when you access or modify the global scope then you risk affecting other objects. This is why libraries like jquery use only a single name on the global scope(the least possible). It lessens the possibility of conflict with other libraries. In other words the global scope is out of your control, so it is dangerous.
Using global variables is generaly speaking a bad practice, regardless of the language of choice. They are not even (easily) allowed to use when at strict mode, which I highly recommend.
Consider this piece of code I found:
if (typeof session != 'undefined' && !data.cart.request_status)
data.input_definitions.passengers =
inflate_passenger(session, data.input_definitions.passengers);
I needed to turn around and ask a felow programmer where did this session variable came from, as no code search showed up where was set.
I turned out another package from the company sets the global variable.
Code it's like a joke: if you need to explain it it's probably not that good.
Workaround using ES6:
If at Node, use import or require to bring the desired stuff into lexical scope, don't let people touch your global environment without you knowing it.
import {Sesssion} from 'api-core';
const Session = require('api-core').session;
If you are at the frontend delivering code for the browser you can't use import unless you transpile your ES6 code using Babel.
Example transpiling using Gulp.js:
// $ npm install --save-dev gulp-babel babel-preset-es2015
// gulpfile.js
const gulp = require('gulp');
const babel = require('gulp-babel');
gulp.task('transpile', () => {
return gulp.src('src/app.js')
.pipe(babel({presets: ['es2015']}))
.pipe(gulp.dest('dist'));
});
// $ gulp transpile
Legacy workaround:
When using ES6 features is not an option the only workaround to using a bunch of global variables, is using only one, and have hope:
// scripts/app.js
var MyApp = {
globals: {
foo: "bar",
fizz: "buzz"
}
};
var ASHIVA_HandsOffNHS = (function() {
// VARIABLES
var my_var = 10;
// PRIVATE FUNCTIONS
function bar() {
console.log(my_var + 5);
}
// PUBLIC OBJECT
myObject = {};
myObject['a_func'] = function() {
my_var += 10;
console.log(my_var);
};
myObject['b_func'] = function() {
my_var = 0;
console.log(my_var);
};
return myObject;
})();
ASHIVA_HandsOffNHS.a_func();
ASHIVA_HandsOffNHS.b_func();
ASHIVA_HandsOffNHS.a_func();
The issue with your solution is that it just makes you code harder to understand while still keeping all the downsides of global variables. The page you linked to covers the problems. The only problem your proposed solution really solves is namespace pollution but at the cost of not being able to see what global variables are declared as easily as the declaration is a function call).
The solution is to write code without global variables. If a function needs a value pass it as a argument.
You really don't want to do this.
As to why see e.g. the top post here: What is the most EVIL code you have ever seen in a production enterprise environment?
As a side note, one can always execute "global" code without littering the place with globals:
(function() {
var notaglobal = 1;
alert(notaglobal);
})();
//notaglobal is not defined in this scope
Other answer most explain with anonymous function as this article mention,
Anonymous functions are difficult to debug, maintain, test, or reuse.
Here are example with normal function. It's easier to read and understand.
/* global variable example */
var a= 3, b= 6;
function fwithglobal(){
console.log(a, b); // 3 6 expected
}
fwithglobal(); // first call
function swithglobal(){
var a=9;
console.log(a, b); // not 3 6 but 9 6
}
swithglobal(); // second call
/* global variable alternative(function parameter) */
function altern(){
var a= 3, b= 6; // var keyword needed
f_func(a,b);
s_func(a,b);
}
function f_func(n, m){
console.log(n, m); // 3 6 expected
}
function s_func(n, m){
var a=9;
console.log(n, m); // 3 6 expected
}
altern(); // only once
Global variables are bad... if left unmanaged!
The potential risks of global variables is as high as the pleasure and productivity gains of having frequently used objects ready to use.
I don't believe one should seek a single alternative. Instead I advocate for one object in charge of managing those globals and as the code base/component matures, refactor them out
One thing not mentioned in the current answers which I think is critical is an understanding of DI and IoC containers. These address many of the problems people try to solve with global variables, but covering related concerns that plain globals can't, like object life cycles.