I have an object that needs certain properties to be set by execution instead of assignment. Is it possible to do this using a literal object notation?
I would like to be able to access the object's properties using this:
myObject.propertyName
...rather than this:
objInstance = new myObject();
objInstance.propertyName;
EDIT: to clarify, based on Bergi's answer, this is what I'm aiming to do:
var myObj = {
myInfo: (function() { return myObj.getInfo('myInfo'); })(),
getInfo: function() {
/* lots of execution here that would be redundant if done within myInfo */
}
}
// access the calculated property value
myObj.myInfo;
But this gives me the error myObj is not defined
I guess what you want is an IEFE, which you can put inside an object literal:
var myObject = {
propertyName: (function() {
var it = 5*3; // compute something and
return it;
}()),
anotherFunction: function() {…}
};
myObject.propertyName // 15
Maybe you also want to use the module pattern. Have a look at Simplest/Cleanest way to implement singleton in JavaScript?.
Thanks to Bergi to finding this, here is a final example what I wanted to do:
myObj = {
init: function() {
this.oneProperty = anyCodeIWant...
this.anotherProperty = moreCodeIWant...
// and so on
return this;
}
}.init();
myObj.oneProperty;
myObj.anotherProperty;
// and so on
I want to inherit new object instance using prototype.
Test case:
var MyObj = function() {}
MyObj.prototype.objName = {}
// I want this to be a different object for each instance of MyObj
var o1 = new MyObj (),
o2 = new MyObj ();
o1.objName['a'] = 1;
o2.objName['a'] = 2;
alert(o1.objName['a']) // 2
alert(o1.objName === o2.objName) // true
This means that objects in prototype are not inherited as its copies but instead as its reference.
I know that normally you can do it like this.
var MyObj = function() {
this.objName = {}
}
var o1 = new MyObj(),
o2 = new MyObj();
alert(o1.objName === o2.objName) // false
This works fine, but in my case this is not an option. I really need to define objName outside the MyObj function.
I managed to "solve" the problem with this
MyObj.prototype.objName = function() {
if ( this._objName === undefined ) {
this._objName = {};
}
return this._objName;
}
var o1 = new MyObj(),
o2 = new MyObj();
o1.objName()['a'] = 1;
o2.objName()['a'] = 2;
alert(o1.objName()['a']) // 1
But this is not very pretty and the performance of this code is much worse.
Is there any way to solve this more elegantly ?
This means that objects in prototype are not inherited as its copies but instead as its reference.
Nothing on the prototype is copied - the whole concept of prototypical inheritance is that properties reference the shared properties of the prototype object. So if you want a property to be individual for each instance, you have to explicitly assign it to the object and shadow the prototype property; just as you're doing it with the _objName property in your code.
But this is not very pretty and the performance of this code is much worse.
If you want it pretty, move it to the constructor (or make the constructor look for something like an init method to call if exists, then you can create that init method on the prototype.
To make performance a little better, you can change the getter function to
MyObj.prototype.getObj = function() {
var obj = {};
this.getObj = function(){ return obj; }; // overwrite itself
return obj;
};
though it still has the function call overhead. For even more elegance, you can use a getter property (not supported in old browsers) that removes itself on the first access:
Object.defineProperty(MyObj.prototype, "objName", {
get: function() {
var obj = {};
Object.defineProperty(this, "objName", {
value: obj,
writable: true //?
});
return obj;
},
enumerable: true,
configurable: true
});
Now you can omit the function call parenthesis.
This means that objects in prototype are not inherited as its copies but instead as its reference.
Just to be clear. First of all in JavaScript all objects are passed by reference, not by value. Only primitives are passed by value.
Second, you're not actually "copying" or "passing" anything. When you set a prototype, you're creating a prototype's chain. It means that in your case:
var MyObj = function() {};
MyObj.prototype.objName = {} ;
var o1 = new MyObj ();
var o2 = new MyObj ();
Both o1 and o2 doesn't have any property called objName, and you can simply test it with:
console.log(Object.keys(o1)); // []
When JS see a code like o1.objName, as first thing checks if the object has this property, and if it has, use it. If not, start to looking in the prototype's chain, starting by the prototype of o1, that is MyObj.prototype: it found the properties objName, and returns it. If it didn't find it, then JS will continue to check the prototype of MyObj.prototype, and so on. So, here the point: MyObj.prototype it's an object: and you shared that object between o1 and o2. That's why the instance of objName is the same. It's exactly the same logic of having:
function objName(obj) {
return "objName" in obj ? obj.objName : O.objName;
}
var O = { objName: [] };
var foo = {};
var bar = {};
objName(foo).push(0);
objName(bar).push(1);
So, you can't put in prototype any object that is not meant to be shared across the objects creates using that prototype. I would say that shared states like that is also a bad practice that should be avoided, that's why in general prototype shouldn't have such property.
It's still not clear to me why you can't modify the constructor, but the point is: when you create the instance of your object, you have to "setup" it. Usually, calling the constructor, but any function is fine. This is made also when you want to support inheritance, and calling the "super" constructor to initialize your object.
I understand that there are multiple ways to create an object in javascript and I have been reading that object literal syntax is generally preferred. (Correct?)
What I haven't been able to figure out is if there is ever a reason to use any of the other ways to create objects, such as a custom constructor function (var p = new Person("Adam"))? Is it true to use a custom constructor function only if I want private variables or to add methods or properties to its prototype? Is there no way to do these in a literal?
You can use the custom constructor function when you want to create instances of objects, similar to Java.
For example:
function MyObj(x){
this.x = x;
}
MyObj.prototype.printX = function(){
alert(this.x);
}
var obj1 = new MyObj("hello");
var obj2 = new MyObj("hello2");
obj1.printX();//prints hello
obj2.printX();//prints hello2
Now I have two instances of this object. If I used String literals I would need to clone the object into a new var in order to get another instance.
The discussion usually is about to prefer
var myObject = {};
over
var myObject = new Object();
If you however create your own constructor functions you are perfectly allowed to instantiate them with the new keyword, nothing controversial there.
The preferred method would be to use JSON: var p = { "name":"Adam" };
If you have a lot of member variables you need to initialize, or will be using a lot of objects (such as an array of them), etc. then it only makes sense to go ahead and create a function (constructor) which will do all of this for you. Unless you want your code to look like this:
var a = { "name":"Adam", "age":23, "city":"Boston" };
var b = { "name":"Jeff", "age":24, "city":"San mateo" };
var c = { "name":"Aaliyah", "age":25, "city":"New York" };
var d = { "name":"Mary", "age":26, "city":"Dallas" };
I have some object, say son, which I'd like to inherit from another object father.
Of course I can make a constructor function for father, like
Father = function() {
this.firstProperty = someValue;
this.secondProperty = someOtherValue;
}
And then use
var son = new Father();
son.thirdProperty = yetAnotherValue;
but this is not exactly what I want. Since son is going to have many properties, it would be more readable to have son declared as an object literal. But then I don't know how to set its protoype.
Doing something like
var father = {
firstProperty: someValue;
secondProperty: someOtherValue;
};
var son = {
thirdProperty: yetAnotherValue
};
son.constructor.prototype = father;
will not work, as the prototype chain seems to be hidden and not care about the change of constructor.prototype.
I think I can use the __proto__ property in Firefox, like
var father = {
firstProperty: someValue;
secondProperty: someOtherValue;
};
var son = {
thirdProperty: yetAnotherValue
__proto__: father
};
son.constructor.prototype = father;
but, as far as I understand, this is not a standard feature of the language and it is better not to use it directly.
Is there a way to specify the prototype for an object literal?
You're right, __proto__ is a non-standard property, and the only two standard ways you have to set a new object's [[Prototype]], are:
Through the use of a constructor and the new operator (as you already mention).
Using the ECMAScript 5 Object.create method.
Object.create is not widely supported yet (works on IE9Pre3+, Firefox 3.7Alpha+, Chrome 5+ Safari 5+, Rhino 1.7), but at some point all the implementations will conform the ES5 spec.
It can take two arguments, the first one is the object that will be used as the [[Prototype]] of the new object, and the second one, is another object where the own properties can be described (in the same structure that you would use Object.defineProperties).
For example:
var father = {
firstProperty: 1,
secondProperty: 2
};
var son = Object.create(father, {
thirdProperty: {
value: 'foo'
}
});
father.isPrototypeOf(son); // true
son.firstProperty; // 1
The son internal [[Prototype]] property will refer to father, and it will contain a value property named thirdProperty.
That's incorrect jmar777. If for example you have
var X = function() {};
X.prototype = {
protoFunc1: function() { console.log('p1');},
protoFunc2: function() { console.log('p2');}
};
X.protoFunc1(); // is not a function
That means that what you're doing:
X.prototype = {}
is just creating an object called prototype. Not the actual prototype. To use prototype you have to use constructor functions.
if however you modify it to this (constructor method)
function X(){};
X.prototype.protoFunc1 = function() {
console.log('p1');
}
X.prototype.protoFunc2 = function() {
console.log('p2');
}
var x = new X();
x.protoFunc1(); //'p1'
It would work.
Either go the object literal method without using prototype or use the contructor method using prototype.
Specifying the prototype for an object literal is a little "wonky", since you'll primarily want the prototype on objects that you create using the constructor syntax (e.g., new X()). Not saying this isn't possible... but it's strange. A similar pattern that is well proved out (used by jQuery, for example), is to instead define the prototype as an object literal. For example:
var X = function() {};
X.prototype = {
protoFunc1: function() {},
protoFunc2: function() {}
};
Javascript 1.9.3 / ECMAScript 5 introduces Object.create, which Douglas Crockford amongst others has been advocating for a long time. How do I replace new in the code below with Object.create?
var UserA = function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
}
UserA.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
var bob = new UserA('bob');
bob.sayHello();
(Assume MY_GLOBAL.nextId exists).
The best I can come up with is:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB);
bob.init('Bob');
bob.sayHello();
There doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I think I'm not getting it. I'm probably being too neo-classical. How should I use Object.create to create user 'bob'?
With only one level of inheritance, your example may not let you see the real benefits of Object.create.
This methods allows you to easily implement differential inheritance, where objects can directly inherit from other objects.
On your userB example, I don't think that your init method should be public or even exist, if you call again this method on an existing object instance, the id and name properties will change.
Object.create lets you initialize object properties using its second argument, e.g.:
var userB = {
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB, {
'id' : {
value: MY_GLOBAL.nextId(),
enumerable:true // writable:false, configurable(deletable):false by default
},
'name': {
value: 'Bob',
enumerable: true
}
});
As you can see, the properties can be initialized on the second argument of Object.create, with an object literal using a syntax similar to the used by the Object.defineProperties and Object.defineProperty methods.
It lets you set the property attributes (enumerable, writable, or configurable), which can be really useful.
There is really no advantage in using Object.create(...) over new object.
Those advocating this method generally state rather ambiguous advantages: "scalability", or "more natural to JavaScript" etc.
However, I have yet to see a concrete example that shows that Object.create has any advantages over using new. On the contrary there are known problems with it. Sam Elsamman describes what happens when there are nested objects and Object.create(...) is used:
var Animal = {
traits: {},
}
var lion = Object.create(Animal);
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = Object.create(Animal);
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // shows 2!!!
This occurs because Object.create(...) advocates a practice where data is used to create new objects; here the Animal datum becomes part of the prototype of lion and bird, and causes problems as it is shared. When using new the prototypal inheritance is explicit:
function Animal() {
this.traits = {};
}
function Lion() { }
Lion.prototype = new Animal();
function Bird() { }
Bird.prototype = new Animal();
var lion = new Lion();
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = new Bird();
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // now shows 4
Regarding, the optional property attributes that are passed into Object.create(...), these can be added using Object.defineProperties(...).
Object.create is not yet standard on several browsers, for example IE8, Opera v11.5, Konq 4.3 do not have it. You can use Douglas Crockford's version of Object.create for those browsers but this doesn't include the second 'initialisation object' parameter used in CMS's answer.
For cross browser code one way to get object initialisation in the meantime is to customise Crockford's Object.create. Here is one method:-
Object.build = function(o) {
var initArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1)
function F() {
if((typeof o.init === 'function') && initArgs.length) {
o.init.apply(this,initArgs)
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This maintains Crockford prototypal inheritance, and also checks for any init method in the object, then runs it with your parameter(s), like say new man('John','Smith'). Your code then becomes:-
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}} // For example
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.build(userB, 'Bob'); // Different from your code
bob.sayHello();
So bob inherits the sayHello method and now has own properties id=1 and name='Bob'. These properties are both writable and enumerable of course. This is also a much simpler way to initialise than for ECMA Object.create especially if you aren't concerned about the writable, enumerable and configurable attributes.
For initialisation without an init method the following Crockford mod could be used:-
Object.gen = function(o) {
var makeArgs = arguments
function F() {
var prop, i=1, arg, val
for(prop in o) {
if(!o.hasOwnProperty(prop)) continue
val = o[prop]
arg = makeArgs[i++]
if(typeof arg === 'undefined') break
this[prop] = arg
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This fills the userB own properties, in the order they are defined, using the Object.gen parameters from left to right after the userB parameter. It uses the for(prop in o) loop so, by ECMA standards, the order of property enumeration cannot be guaranteed the same as the order of property definition. However, several code examples tested on (4) major browsers show they are the same, provided the hasOwnProperty filter is used, and sometimes even if not.
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}}; // For example
var userB = {
name: null,
id: null,
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
}
var bob = Object.gen(userB, 'Bob', MY_GLOBAL.nextId());
Somewhat simpler I would say than Object.build since userB does not need an init method. Also userB is not specifically a constructor but looks like a normal singleton object. So with this method you can construct and initialise from normal plain objects.
TL;DR:
new Computer() will invoke the constructor function Computer(){} for one time, while Object.create(Computer.prototype) won't.
All the advantages are based on this point.
Sidenote about performance: Constructor invoking like new Computer() is heavily optimized by the engine, so it may be even faster than Object.create.
You could make the init method return this, and then chain the calls together, like this:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
return this;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB).init('Bob');
Another possible usage of Object.create is to clone immutable objects in a cheap and effective way.
var anObj = {
a: "test",
b: "jest"
};
var bObj = Object.create(anObj);
bObj.b = "gone"; // replace an existing (by masking prototype)
bObj.c = "brand"; // add a new to demonstrate it is actually a new obj
// now bObj is {a: test, b: gone, c: brand}
Notes: The above snippet creates a clone of an source object (aka not a reference, as in cObj = aObj). It benefits over the copy-properties method (see 1), in that it does not copy object member properties. Rather it creates another -destination- object with it's prototype set on the source object. Moreover when properties are modified on the dest object, they are created "on the fly", masking the prototype's (src's) properties.This constitutes a fast an effective way of cloning immutable objects.
The caveat here is that this applies to source objects that should not be modified after creation (immutable). If the source object is modified after creation, all the clone's unmasked properties will be modified, too.
Fiddle here(http://jsfiddle.net/y5b5q/1/) (needs Object.create capable browser).
I think the main point in question - is to understand difference between new and Object.create approaches. Accordingly to this answer and to this video new keyword does next things:
Creates new object.
Links new object to constructor function (prototype).
Makes this variable point to the new object.
Executes constructor function using the new object and implicit perform return this;
Assigns constructor function name to new object's property constructor.
Object.create performs only 1st and 2nd steps!!!
In code example provided in question it isn't big deal, but in next example it is:
var onlineUsers = [];
function SiteMember(name) {
this.name = name;
onlineUsers.push(name);
}
SiteMember.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
function Guest(name) {
SiteMember.call(this, name);
}
Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
var g = new Guest('James');
console.log(onlineUsers);
As side effect result will be:
[ undefined, 'James' ]
because of Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
But we don't need to execute parent constructor method, we need only make method getName to be available in Guest.
Hence we have to use Object.create.
If replace Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
to Guest.prototype = Object.create(SiteMember.prototype); result be:
[ 'James' ]
Sometimes you cannot create an object with NEW but are still able to invoke the CREATE method.
For example: if you want to define a Custom Element it must derive from HTMLElement.
proto = new HTMLElement //fail :(
proto = Object.create( HTMLElement.prototype ) //OK :)
document.registerElement( "custom-element", { prototype: proto } )
The advantage is that Object.create is typically slower than new on most browsers
In this jsperf example, in a Chromium, browser new is 30 times as fast as Object.create(obj) although both are pretty fast. This is all pretty strange because new does more things (like invoking a constructor) where Object.create should be just creating a new Object with the passed in object as a prototype (secret link in Crockford-speak)
Perhaps the browsers have not caught up in making Object.create more efficient (perhaps they are basing it on new under the covers ... even in native code)
Summary:
Object.create() is a Javascript function which takes 2 arguments and returns a new object.
The first argument is an object which will be the prototype of the newly created object
The second argument is an object which will be the properties of the newly created object
Example:
const proto = {
talk : () => console.log('hi')
}
const props = {
age: {
writable: true,
configurable: true,
value: 26
}
}
let Person = Object.create(proto, props)
console.log(Person.age);
Person.talk();
Practical applications:
The main advantage of creating an object in this manner is that the prototype can be explicitly defined. When using an object literal, or the new keyword you have no control over this (however, you can overwrite them of course).
If we want to have a prototype The new keyword invokes a constructor function. With Object.create() there is no need for invoking or even declaring a constructor function.
It can Basically be a helpful tool when you want create objects in a very dynamic manner. We can make an object factory function which creates objects with different prototypes depending on the arguments received.
You have to make a custom Object.create() function. One that addresses Crockfords concerns and also calls your init function.
This will work:
var userBPrototype = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
function UserB(name) {
function F() {};
F.prototype = userBPrototype;
var f = new F;
f.init(name);
return f;
}
var bob = UserB('bob');
bob.sayHello();
Here UserB is like Object.create, but adjusted for our needs.
If you want, you can also call:
var bob = new UserB('bob');
While Douglas Crockford used to be a zealous advocate of Object.create() and he is basically the reason why this construct actually is in javascript, he no longer has this opinion.
He stopped using Object.create, because he stopped using this keyword altogether as it causes too much trouble. For example, if you are not careful it can easily point to the global object, which can have really bad consequences. And he claims that without using this Object.create does not make sense anymore.
You can check this video from 2014 where he talks at Nordic.js:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGEjv3Tqo0
new and Object.create serve different purposes. new is intended to create a new instance of an object type. Object.create is intended to simply create a new object and set its prototype. Why is this useful? To implement inheritance without accessing the __proto__ property. An object instance's prototype referred to as [[Prototype]] is an internal property of the virtual machine and is not intended to be directly accessed. The only reason it is actually possible to directly access [[Prototype]] as the __proto__ property is because it has always been a de-facto standard of every major virtual machine's implementation of ECMAScript, and at this point removing it would break a lot of existing code.
In response to the answer above by 7ochem, objects should absolutely never have their prototype set to the result of a new statement, not only because there's no point calling the same prototype constructor multiple times but also because two instances of the same class can end up with different behavior if one's prototype is modified after being created. Both examples are simply bad code as a result of misunderstanding and breaking the intended behavior of the prototype inheritance chain.
Instead of accessing __proto__, an instance's prototype should be written to when an it is created with Object.create or afterward with Object.setPrototypeOf, and read with Object.getPrototypeOf or Object.isPrototypeOf.
Also, as the Mozilla documentation of Object.setPrototypeOf points out, it is a bad idea to modify the prototype of an object after it is created for performance reasons, in addition to the fact that modifying an object's prototype after it is created can cause undefined behavior if a given piece of code that accesses it can be executed before OR after the prototype is modified, unless that code is very careful to check the current prototype or not access any property that differs between the two.
Given
const X = function (v) { this.v = v };
X.prototype.whatAmI = 'X';
X.prototype.getWhatIAm = () => this.whatAmI;
X.prototype.getV = () => this.v;
the following VM pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x0 = new X(1);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
X.prototype.constructor.call(x0, 1);
Note although the constructor can return any value, the new statement always ignores its return value and returns a reference to the newly created object.
And the following pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x1 = Object.create(X.prototype);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
As you can see, the only difference between the two is that Object.create does not execute the constructor, which can actually return any value but simply returns the new object reference this if not otherwise specified.
Now, if we wanted to create a subclass Y with the following definition:
const Y = function(u) { this.u = u; }
Y.prototype.whatAmI = 'Y';
Y.prototype.getU = () => this.u;
Then we can make it inherit from X like this by writing to __proto__:
Y.prototype.__proto__ = X.prototype;
While the same thing could be accomplished without ever writing to __proto__ with:
Y.prototype = Object.create(X.prototype);
Y.prototype.constructor = Y;
In the latter case, it is necessary to set the constructor property of the prototype so that the correct constructor is called by the new Y statement, otherwise new Y will call the function X. If the programmer does want new Y to call X, it would be more properly done in Y's constructor with X.call(this, u)
new Operator
This is used to create object from a constructor function
The new keywords also executes the constructor function
function Car() {
console.log(this) // this points to myCar
this.name = "Honda";
}
var myCar = new Car()
console.log(myCar) // Car {name: "Honda", constructor: Object}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // true
console.log(myCar.constructor) // function Car() {}
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // true
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
Object.create
You can also use Object.create to create a new object
But, it does not execute the constructor function
Object.create is used to create an object from another object
const Car = {
name: "Honda"
}
var myCar = Object.create(Car)
console.log(myCar) // Object {}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // ERROR
console.log(myCar.constructor) // Anonymous function object
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // false
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
I prefer a closure approach.
I still use new.
I don't use Object.create.
I don't use this.
I still use new as I like the declarative nature of it.
Consider this for simple inheritance.
window.Quad = (function() {
function Quad() {
const wheels = 4;
const drivingWheels = 2;
let motorSize = 0;
function setMotorSize(_) {
motorSize = _;
}
function getMotorSize() {
return motorSize;
}
function getWheelCount() {
return wheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return drivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze({
getWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount,
getMotorSize,
setMotorSize
});
}
return Object.freeze(Quad);
})();
window.Car4wd = (function() {
function Car4wd() {
const quad = new Quad();
const spareWheels = 1;
const extraDrivingWheels = 2;
function getSpareWheelCount() {
return spareWheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return quad.getDrivingWheelCount() + extraDrivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze(Object.assign({}, quad, {
getSpareWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount
}));
}
return Object.freeze(Car4wd);
})();
let myQuad = new Quad();
let myCar = new Car4wd();
console.log(myQuad.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myQuad.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 2
console.log(myCar.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myCar.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 4 - The overridden method is called
console.log(myCar.getSpareWheelCount()); // 1
Feedback encouraged.