Develop Reference

Javascript: How to extend class properly

Searching over the internet I'm always bumping on this approach of Javascript classes extension
function extend(Child, Parent) {
var F = function() { }
F.prototype = Parent.prototype
Child.prototype = new F()
Child.prototype.constructor = Child
Child.superclass = Parent.prototype
}
But how is that different from this one?
function extend(Child, Parent) {
var p = new Parent()
Child.prototype = p
Child.prototype.constructor = Child
Child.superclass = p
}
This last one also works perfect. So why should I use this extra var F = function() { } move then?

Invoking the original constructor directly can have undesirable side effects, like not working properly if certain expected arguments are not passed.
That's why they use a "proxy" function, which lets you get a new object that inherits from Parent() without actually invoking Parent().
Here's a simple example:
function Person(name, age) {
if (name === undefined)
throw "A name is required";
this.name = name + "";
this.age = age;
}
If Person is the parent, it'll throw an error because there was no name passed.

The first example is (as cookie monster mentioned in the comment) a shim for the following piece of code which might be easier to understand.:
function extend(Child, Parent) {
Child.prototype = Object.create(Parent.prototype);
Child.prototype.constructor = Child;
Child.superclass = Parent.prototype;
}
Basically, this implementation makes the object that all Child instances inherit from (Child.prototype) inherit from the object that all Parent instances inherit from (Parent.prototype). Intuitively this is the most accurate representation of class inheritance JavaScript provides.
The second implementation of extends is flawed, because all Child instances will inherit from a specific Parent instance. Should there be significant differences between Parent instances (due to the parameters passed to the constructor for example), the Child instances can not accurate represent that, because they all inherit from a Parent instance created by calling the Parent constructor with no arguments.
Here is an example of what the first implementation can do and the second one can not:
function Parent(name, age) {
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
}
Parent.prototype.greet = function() { return 'I am parent ' + this.name; }
function Child(name){
Parent.call(this, name, 20); // notice the call to the superclass
}
extend(Child, Parent);
Parent.prototype.greet = function() { return 'I am child ' + this.name + ' and i\'m ' + this.age; }
var c = new Child('Tom');
console.log(c.greet()); // I am child Tom and i'm 20
As a sidenote, in the Child constructor i have called the Parent constructor. This is actually quite common when dealing with classical inheritance, so that's another point for the first implementation. It isn't actually required, the Child constructor can safely ignore calling the Parent constructor, but keep in mind that that call basically ensures that the new object created is a valid Parent instance before being a child Instance. In my example if you were to not call the Parent constructor, the name and age properties would not be set on the Child instance, so the greet method would return I am child undefined and i'm undefined, far from what you would expect.

It's worthwhile exploring the different ways you can extend and add bits to an object in JavaScript.
Using constructors
(function (global) {
function SuperClass() { }
var p = SuperClass.prototype;
p.doSomething = function() {
console.log('do something (super)')
};
function OtherClass() {
SuperClass.call(this);
}
OtherClass.prototype = new SuperClass();
Window.OtherClass = OtherClass;
}(window));
var o = new OtherClass();
Using object.create (no double instantiation) - Not supported on all browsers.
(function (global) {
// SuperClass - superclass
function SuperClass() {
}
var p = SuperClass.prototype;
p.doSomething = function() {
console.log('do something (super)')
};
function OtherClass() {
SuperClass.call(this);
}
OtherClass.prototype = Object.create(SuperClass.prototype);
Window.OtherClass = OtherClass;
}(window));
Functional Mixins:
When you want to mixin a generic set of methods/properties into an object.
var mixin = function () {
this.methodA = function () {
};
this.methodA = function () {
};
return this;
}
var object = function () {
this.methodB = function () {
}
}
mixin.call(object.prototype);
A very good details explanation of all the methods:
http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/a-fresh-look-at-javascript-mixins/

reusable javascript objects, prototypes and scope

MyGlobalObject;
function TheFunctionICanUseRightAwaySingleForAllInstansesAndWithoutInstanse() {
function() {
alert('NO CONSTRUCTOR WAS CALLED');
}
};
The Long-named function must be callable from MyGlobalObject, which in turn must be available as a global (to window) variable in all times after script was loaded. It should support extensibility in accordance with latest standards.
I'm at architectural dilemma of how to built JS base for an application (almost 100% JS).
We need an object i.e. window.MyObject (like a module, like jQuery) so
It can be created with
VAR1
var MyGlobalObjConstructor = function(){
this.GlobalFunctionInObject = function(){
alert('called with MyGlobalObj.GlobalFunctionInObject()');
}
};
window.MyGlobalObj = new MyGlobalObjConstructor();
Is MyGlobalObj extensible? Can I create child objects, which will inherit current state of MyGlobalObj (extended functions/properties MyGlobalObj.NewFunc e.g.)? What is the main difference between using prototype (VAR3)?
By GlobaldFunction I mean single instance for all initialized/instantiated (possibly instantializable) instances..
Or with
VAR2
var MyGlobalObj = {
GlobalFunctionInObject: function...
GlobalFunctionInObject2: function...
};
MyGlobalObj.GlobalFunctionInObject();
// here I lose all hierarchy elements, no prototype,
// can I use GlobalFunctionInObject2 in GlobalFunctionInObject?
Or with
VAR3
var MyGlobalConstuctor = function(){} // already 'well-formed' object
MyGlobalConstuctor.prototype.GlobalFunctionInObject = function...
};
var MyGlobalObj = new MyGlobalConstuctor();
// so I'm sceptical to NEW, because I have ALREADY wrote my functions
// which I expect to be in memory, single instance of each of them,
// so creating MyObject2,3,4 with NEW MyGC() makes no sense to me.
// DO I REALLY HAVE TO USE "MyGlobalConstuctor.prototype." FOR EACH FUNCTION?!!!!
What's the difference defining MyGlobalObj as a function and as an object (result of func or VAR2)?
OR VAR4?
I see in Chrome Debugger both prototype and __proto__ special fields. I've read that that's OK, but why are they not saved in a single prototype?
So, what is the correct/optimal way to implement window.MyObject, so one could MyObject.MyFunction(); What are the differences (pro/contra) of variants 1 2 and 3?

Variation 1 - Mixin
function SomeType() {
var priv = "I'm private";
this.publ = "I'm public";
this.action = function() {
return priv + this.publ;
};
}
var obj = new SomeType();
With this method you are creating a new object every time you call new SomeType(), creating all its methods and adding all this method to the new object. Every time you create an object.
Pros
It looks like classical inheritance so it's easy to understand to Java-C#-C++-etc people.
It can have private variables per instance since you have one function closure per each object you create
It allows multiple inheritance, also known as Twitter-mixins or functional mixins
obj instanceof SomeType will return true
Cons
It consumes more memory as more objects you create because with each object you are creating a new closure and creating each of it's methods again.
Private properties are private, not protected, subtypes can't access them
No easy way to know if a object has some Type as superclass.
Inheritance
function SubType() {
SomeType.call(this);
this.newMethod = function() {
// can't access priv
return this.publ;
};
}
var child = new SubType();
child instanceof SomeType will return false there is no other way to know if child has SomeType methods than look if it has them one by one.
Variation 2 - Object literal with prototyping
var obj = {
publ: "I'm public",
_convention: "I'm public too, but please don't touch me!",
someMethod: function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
};
In this case you are creating a single object. If you are going to need only one instance of this type it can be the best solution.
Pros
It's quick and easy to understand.
Performant
Cons
No privacy, every property is public.
Inheritance
You can inherit a object prototyping it.
var child = Object.create(obj);
child.otherMethod = function() {
return this._convention + this.publ;
};
If you are on a old browser you will need to garantee Object.create works:
if (!Object.create) {
Object.create = function(obj) {
function tmp() { }
tmp.prototype = obj;
return new tmp;
};
}
To know if a object is a prototype of another you can use
obj.isPrototypeOf(child); // true
Variation 3 - Constructor pattern
UPDATE: This is the pattern ES6 classes are sugar syntax of. If you use ES6 classes you are following this pattern under the hood.
class SomeType {
constructor() {
// REALLY important to declare every non-function property here
this.publ = "I'm public";
this._convention = "I'm public too, but please don't touch me!";
}
someMethod() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
}
class SubType extends SomeType {
constructor() {
super(/* parent constructor parameters here */);
this.otherValue = 'Hi';
}
otherMethod() {
return this._convention + this.publ + this.otherValue;
}
}
function SomeType() {
// REALLY important to declare every non-function property here
this.publ = "I'm public";
this._convention = "I'm public too, but please don't touch me!";
}
SomeType.prototype.someMethod = function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
};
var obj = new SomeType();
You can re-assign the prototype insteadd of adding each method if you are not inheriting and remember to re-assign the constructor property:
SomeType.prototype = {
constructor: SomeType,
someMethod = function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
};
Or use _.extend or $.extend if you have underscore or jquery in your page
_.extend(SomeType.prototype, {
someMethod = function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
};
The new keyword under the hood simply does this:
function doNew(Constructor) {
var instance = Object.create(Constructor.prototype);
instance.constructor();
return instance;
}
var obj = doNew(SomeType);
What you have is a function than has no methods; it just has a prototype property with a list of functions, the new operator means to create a new object and use this function's prototype (Object.create) and constructor property as initializer.
Pros
Performant
Prototype chain will allow you to know if a object inherits from some type
Cons
Two-step inheritance
Inheritance
function SubType() {
// Step 1, exactly as Variation 1
// This inherits the non-function properties
SomeType.call(this);
this.otherValue = 'Hi';
}
// Step 2, this inherits the methods
SubType.prototype = Object.create(SomeType.prototype);
SubType.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
return this._convention + this.publ + this.otherValue;
};
var child = new SubType();
You may think it looks like a super-set of Variation 2... and you'll be right. It's like variation 2 but with a initializer function (the constructor);
child instanceof SubType and child instanceof SomeType will return both true
Curiosity: Under the hood instanceof operator does is
function isInstanceOf(obj, Type) {
return Type.prototype.isPrototypeOf(obj);
}
Variation 4 - Overwrite __proto__
When you do Object.create(obj) under the hood it does
function fakeCreate(obj) {
var child = {};
child.__proto__ = obj;
return child;
}
var child = fakeCreate(obj);
The __proto__ property modifies directly the object's hidden [Prototype] property. As this can break JavaScript behaviour, it's not standard. And the standard way is preferred (Object.create).
Pros
Quick and performant
Cons
Non-standard
Dangerous; you can't have a hashmap since the __proto__ key can change the object's prototype
Inheritance
var child = { __proto__: obj };
obj.isPrototypeOf(child); // true
Comment questions
1. var1: what happens in SomeType.call(this)? Is 'call' special function?
Oh, yes, functions are objects so they have methods, I will mention three: .call(), .apply() and .bind()
When you use .call() on a function, you can pass one extra argument, the context, the value of this inside the function, for example:
var obj = {
test: function(arg1, arg2) {
console.log(this);
console.log(arg1);
console.log(arg2);
}
};
// These two ways to invoke the function are equivalent
obj.test('hi', 'lol');
// If we call fn('hi', 'lol') it will receive "window" as "this" so we have to use call.
var fn = obj.test;
fn.call(obj, 'hi', 'lol');
So when we do SomeType.call(this) we are passing the object this to function SomeCall, as you remember this function will add methods to object this.
2. var3: With your "REALLY define properties" do you mean if I use them in functions? Is it a convention? Because getting this.newProperty without it being defined at the same level with other member functions is not a problem.
I mean any property your object will have that is not a function must be defined on the constructor, not on the prototype, otherwise you will face one of the more confusing JS problems. You can see it here, but it's outside of the focus of this question.
3. Var3: what happens if I don't re-assign constructor?
Actually you might not see the difference and this is what makes it a dangerous bug. Every function's prototype object has a constructor property so you can access the constructor from an instance.
function A() { }
// When you create a function automatically, JS does this:
// A.prototype = { constructor: A };
A.prototype.someMethod = function() {
console.log(this.constructor === A); // true
this.constructor.staticMethod();
return new this.constructor();
};
A.staticMethod = function() { };
It's not a best practice because not everybody knows about it, but sometimes it helps. But if you reassign the prototype...
A.prototype = {
someMethod = function() {
console.log(this.constructor === A); // false
console.log(this.constructor === Object); // true
this.constructor.staticMethod();
return new this.constructor();
}
};
A.prototype is a new object, a instance of Object than prototypes Object.prototype and Object.prototype.constructor is Object. Confusing, right? :P
So if you overwrite the prototype and don't reset the "constructor" property, it will refer to Object instead of A, and if you try to use the "constructor" property to access some static method you may get crazy.

I usually settle with returning an object with functions as properties:
var newCat = function (name) {
return {name: name, purr: function () {alert(name + ' purrs')}};
};
var myCat = newCat('Felix');
myCat.name; // 'Felix'
myCat.purr(); // alert fires
You can have inheritance by calling the newCat function and extend the object you get:
var newLion = function (name) {
var lion = newCat(name);
lion.roar = function () {
alert(name + ' roar loudly');
}
return lion;
}
If you want a global cats object:
var cats = (function () {
var newCat = function (name) {
return {
name: name,
purr: function () {
alert(name + ' is purring')
}
};
};
return {
newCat: newCat
};
}());
Now you can call:
var mySecondCat = cats.newCat('Alice');

JavaScript Extending Class

I have a base class:
function Monster() {
this.health = 100;
}
Monster.prototype.growl = function() {
console.log("Grr!");
}
That I want to extend and create another class with:
function Monkey extends Monster() {
this.bananaCount = 5;
}
Monkey.prototype.eatBanana {
this.bananaCount--;
this.health++; //Accessing variable from parent class monster
this.growl(); //Accessing function from parent class monster
}
I've done quite a bit of research and there appears to be many convoluted solutions for doing this in JavaScript. What would be the simplest and most reliable way of accomplishing this in JS?

Updated below for ES6
March 2013 and ES5
This MDN document describes extending classes well:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Introduction_to_Object-Oriented_JavaScript
In particular, here is now they handle it:
// define the Person Class
function Person() {}
Person.prototype.walk = function(){
alert ('I am walking!');
};
Person.prototype.sayHello = function(){
alert ('hello');
};
// define the Student class
function Student() {
// Call the parent constructor
Person.call(this);
}
// inherit Person
Student.prototype = Object.create(Person.prototype);
// correct the constructor pointer because it points to Person
Student.prototype.constructor = Student;
// replace the sayHello method
Student.prototype.sayHello = function(){
alert('hi, I am a student');
}
// add sayGoodBye method
Student.prototype.sayGoodBye = function(){
alert('goodBye');
}
var student1 = new Student();
student1.sayHello();
student1.walk();
student1.sayGoodBye();
// check inheritance
alert(student1 instanceof Person); // true
alert(student1 instanceof Student); // true
Note that Object.create() is unsupported in some older browsers, including IE8:
If you are in the position of needing to support these, the linked MDN document suggests using a polyfill, or the following approximation:
function createObject(proto) {
function ctor() { }
ctor.prototype = proto;
return new ctor();
}
Using this like Student.prototype = createObject(Person.prototype) is preferable to using new Person() in that it avoids calling the parent's constructor function when inheriting the prototype, and only calls the parent constructor when the inheritor's constructor is being called.
May 2017 and ES6
Thankfully, the JavaScript designers have heard our pleas for help and have adopted a more suitable way of approaching this issue.
MDN has another great example on ES6 class inheritance, but I'll show the exact same set of classes as above reproduced in ES6:
class Person {
sayHello() {
alert('hello');
}
walk() {
alert('I am walking!');
}
}
class Student extends Person {
sayGoodBye() {
alert('goodBye');
}
sayHello() {
alert('hi, I am a student');
}
}
var student1 = new Student();
student1.sayHello();
student1.walk();
student1.sayGoodBye();
// check inheritance
alert(student1 instanceof Person); // true
alert(student1 instanceof Student); // true
Clean and understandable, just like we all want. Keep in mind, that while ES6 is pretty common, it's not supported everywhere:

ES6 gives you now the opportunity to use class & extends keywords :
Then , your code will be :
You have a base class:
class Monster{
constructor(){
this.health = 100;
}
growl() {
console.log("Grr!");
}
}
That You want to extend and create another class with:
class Monkey extends Monster {
constructor(){
super(); //don't forget "super"
this.bananaCount = 5;
}
eatBanana() {
this.bananaCount--;
this.health++; //Accessing variable from parent class monster
this.growl(); //Accessing function from parent class monster
}
}

Try this:
Function.prototype.extends = function(parent) {
this.prototype = Object.create(parent.prototype);
};
Monkey.extends(Monster);
function Monkey() {
Monster.apply(this, arguments); // call super
}
Edit: I put a quick demo here http://jsbin.com/anekew/1/edit. Note that extends is a reserved word in JS and you may get warnings when linting your code, you can simply name it inherits, that's what I usually do.
With this helper in place and using an object props as only parameter, inheritance in JS becomes a bit simpler:
Function.prototype.inherits = function(parent) {
this.prototype = Object.create(parent.prototype);
};
function Monster(props) {
this.health = props.health || 100;
}
Monster.prototype = {
growl: function() {
return 'Grrrrr';
}
};
Monkey.inherits(Monster);
function Monkey() {
Monster.apply(this, arguments);
}
var monkey = new Monkey({ health: 200 });
console.log(monkey.health); //=> 200
console.log(monkey.growl()); //=> "Grrrr"

If you don't like the prototype approach, because it doesn't really behave in a nice OOP-way, you could try this:
var BaseClass = function()
{
this.some_var = "foobar";
/**
* #return string
*/
this.someMethod = function() {
return this.some_var;
}
};
var MyClass = new Class({ extends: BaseClass }, function()
{
/**
* #param string value
*/
this.__construct = function(value)
{
this.some_var = value;
}
})
Using lightweight library (2k minified): https://github.com/haroldiedema/joii

I can propose one variant, just have read in book, it seems the simplest:
function Parent() {
this.name = 'default name';
};
function Child() {
this.address = '11 street';
};
Child.prototype = new Parent(); // child class inherits from Parent
Child.prototype.constructor = Child; // constructor alignment
var a = new Child();
console.log(a.name); // "default name" trying to reach property of inherited class

This is an extension (excuse the pun) of elclanrs' solution to include detail on instance methods, as well as taking an extensible approach to that aspect of the question; I fully acknowledge that this is put together thanks to David Flanagan's "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" (partially adjusted for this context). Note that this is clearly more verbose than other solutions, but would probably benefit in the long-term.
First we use David's simple "extend" function, which copies properties to a specified object:
function extend(o,p) {
for (var prop in p) {
o[prop] = p[prop];
}
return o;
}
Then we implement his Subclass definition utility:
function defineSubclass(superclass, // Constructor of our superclass
constructor, // Constructor of our new subclass
methods, // Instance methods
statics) { // Class properties
// Set up the prototype object of the subclass
constructor.prototype = Object.create(superclass.prototype);
constructor.prototype.constructor = constructor;
if (methods) extend(constructor.prototype, methods);
if (statics) extend(constructor, statics);
return constructor;
}
For the last bit of preparation we enhance our Function prototype with David's new jiggery-pokery:
Function.prototype.extend = function(constructor, methods, statics) {
return defineSubclass(this, constructor, methods, statics);
};
After defining our Monster class, we do the following (which is re-usable for any new Classes we want to extend/inherit):
var Monkey = Monster.extend(
// constructor
function Monkey() {
this.bananaCount = 5;
Monster.apply(this, arguments); // Superclass()
},
// methods added to prototype
{
eatBanana: function () {
this.bananaCount--;
this.health++;
this.growl();
}
}
);

For traditional extending you can simply write superclass as constructor function,
and then apply this constructor for your inherited class.
function AbstractClass() {
this.superclass_method = function(message) {
// do something
};
}
function Child() {
AbstractClass.apply(this);
// Now Child will have superclass_method()
}
Example on angularjs:
http://plnkr.co/edit/eFixlsgF3nJ1LeWUJKsd?p=preview
app.service('noisyThing',
['notify',function(notify){
this._constructor = function() {
this.scream = function(message) {
message = message + " by " + this.get_mouth();
notify(message);
console.log(message);
};
this.get_mouth = function(){
return 'abstract mouth';
}
}
}])
.service('cat',
['noisyThing', function(noisyThing){
noisyThing._constructor.apply(this)
this.meow = function() {
this.scream('meooooow');
}
this.get_mouth = function(){
return 'fluffy mouth';
}
}])
.service('bird',
['noisyThing', function(noisyThing){
noisyThing._constructor.apply(this)
this.twit = function() {
this.scream('fuuuuuuck');
}
}])

For Autodidacts:
function BaseClass(toBePrivate){
var morePrivates;
this.isNotPrivate = 'I know';
// add your stuff
}
var o = BaseClass.prototype;
// add your prototype stuff
o.stuff_is_never_private = 'whatever_except_getter_and_setter';
// MiddleClass extends BaseClass
function MiddleClass(toBePrivate){
BaseClass.call(this);
// add your stuff
var morePrivates;
this.isNotPrivate = 'I know';
}
var o = MiddleClass.prototype = Object.create(BaseClass.prototype);
MiddleClass.prototype.constructor = MiddleClass;
// add your prototype stuff
o.stuff_is_never_private = 'whatever_except_getter_and_setter';
// TopClass extends MiddleClass
function TopClass(toBePrivate){
MiddleClass.call(this);
// add your stuff
var morePrivates;
this.isNotPrivate = 'I know';
}
var o = TopClass.prototype = Object.create(MiddleClass.prototype);
TopClass.prototype.constructor = TopClass;
// add your prototype stuff
o.stuff_is_never_private = 'whatever_except_getter_and_setter';
// to be continued...
Create "instance" with getter and setter:
function doNotExtendMe(toBePrivate){
var morePrivates;
return {
// add getters, setters and any stuff you want
}
}

Summary:
There are multiple ways which can solve the problem of extending a constructor function with a prototype in Javascript. Which of these methods is the 'best' solution is opinion based. However, here are two frequently used methods in order to extend a constructor's function prototype.
ES 2015 Classes:
class Monster {
constructor(health) {
this.health = health
}
growl () {
console.log("Grr!");
}
}
class Monkey extends Monster {
constructor (health) {
super(health) // call super to execute the constructor function of Monster
this.bananaCount = 5;
}
}
const monkey = new Monkey(50);
console.log(typeof Monster);
console.log(monkey);
The above approach of using ES 2015 classes is nothing more than syntactic sugar over the prototypal inheritance pattern in javascript. Here the first log where we evaluate typeof Monster we can observe that this is function. This is because classes are just constructor functions under the hood. Nonetheless you may like this way of implementing prototypal inheritance and definitively should learn it. It is used in major frameworks such as ReactJS and Angular2+.
Factory function using Object.create():
function makeMonkey (bananaCount) {
// here we define the prototype
const Monster = {
health: 100,
growl: function() {
console.log("Grr!");}
}
const monkey = Object.create(Monster);
monkey.bananaCount = bananaCount;
return monkey;
}
const chimp = makeMonkey(30);
chimp.growl();
console.log(chimp.bananaCount);
This method uses the Object.create() method which takes an object which will be the prototype of the newly created object it returns. Therefore we first create the prototype object in this function and then call Object.create() which returns an empty object with the __proto__ property set to the Monster object. After this we can initialize all the properties of the object, in this example we assign the bananacount to the newly created object.

the absolutely minimal (and correct, unlike many of the answers above) version is:
function Monkey(param){
this.someProperty = param;
}
Monkey.prototype = Object.create(Monster.prototype);
Monkey.prototype.eatBanana = function(banana){ banana.eat() }
That's all. You can read here the longer explanation

Object constructors building off other Object constructors

I'm currently in the process of converting a quite large actionscript library to work in a nodejs project of mine. While doing so I stumbled upon something that could be an issue: Building classes from classes.
Is there a way to use an object as the base for another object(IE: inherits all members from the base object, then overwrites same name members from the extending object)?
Right now this is what I'm doing, though it's getting a bit difficult to manage now that there are 3+ classes built one on top of another:
// The base object which others may extend
function A() {
this.a = "pie";
}
A.prototype.yum = function() {
return this.a + " is AWESOME!";
}
// The "extends A" object.
// Instead of creating an instance of "B", I current just create an instance of "A",
// then adding the members from "B" to it at which point I return the "A" instance.
function B() {
var a = new A();
a.b = "pie";
// Notice how I have to declare the overwriting function here instead of being able
// to drop it into B's prototype. The reason this bothers me is instead of just
// having one copy of the function(s) stored, each time a "new B" is created the
// function is duplicated... for 100s of "B" objects created, that seems like poor
// memory management
a.yum = function () {
return "I like " + this.a + " and " + this.b;
};
return a;
}
console.log((B()).yum());
Is it possible to do something along the following?
I know this isn't valid, but it gives the idea.
function A(){
this.a = "pie"
}
A.prototype.yum = function () {
return this.a + " is AWESOME!";
}
function B(){
// Throws an "illegal left hand assignment" Exception due to overwriting `this`;
this = new A();
this.b = "cake"
}
B.prototype.yum = function () {
return "I like "+this.a+" and "+this.b;
}
console.log((new B()).yum());
Notes:
1: I know javascript doesn't have classes; it uses objects and prototypes. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking.
2: This isn't the actual code im (trying) to convert; it's a generalized example
3: Please do not suggest a library. I know at times they are valuable, but I'd rather not have to maintain, depend on and include an entire library for the project.
ANSWER:
I know it's bad form to alter native member prototypes, but I think this merits it, due to the lack of possible functionality, and the size of it.
Object.prototype.extendsUpon = function (p) {
var h = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
for(var k in p)if(h.call(p,k))this[k]=p[k];
function c(c){this.constructor=c;}
c.prototype = p.prototype;
this.prototype = new c(this);
this.__base__ = p.prototype;
}
function object_Constructor_built_ontop_of_another_constructor() {
this.extendsUpon(base_Object_to_built_atop_off);
this.__base__.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
// From here proceed as usual
/* To access members from the base object that have been over written,
* use "this.__base__.MEMBER.apply(this, arguments)" */
}

Very much possible. You can do it in multiple ways, the more complete is used in coffeescript:
var ClassBase, ClassTop,
__hasProp = {}.hasOwnProperty,
__extends = function(child, parent) { for (var key in parent) { if (__hasProp.call(parent, key)) child[key] = parent[key]; } function ctor() { this.constructor = child; } ctor.prototype = parent.prototype; child.prototype = new ctor(); child.__super__ = parent.prototype; return child; };
ClassBase = (function() {
function ClassBase() {}
return ClassBase;
})();
ClassTop = (function(_super) {
__extends(ClassTop, _super);
function ClassTop() {
return ClassTop.__super__.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
}
return ClassTop;
})(ClassBase);
There is going to be some boilerplate code. ClassTop is inheriting everything from ClassBase. The classes don't have much inside them other then an __extend, a (function(_super... and some constructor boilerplate but it's fairly simple.
The inheritance is mostly managed by the __extends boilerplate that does some magic. The full __extends method is beautified here:
__extends = function (child, parent) {
for (var key in parent) {
if (__hasProp.call(parent, key)) child[key] = parent[key];
}
function ctor() {
this.constructor = child;
}
ctor.prototype = parent.prototype;
child.prototype = new ctor();
child.__super__ = parent.prototype;
return child;
};
Again, much less scary then before. You're basically checking properties that the parent has and applying them to the child. More information can be found here: http://www.jimmycuadra.com/posts/coffeescript-classes-under-the-hood

Crockford-style prototypal pattern gotcha; looking for an elegant solution

I often use Crockford's prototypal pattern when writing JavaScript programs. I thought I understood all the "gotchas" involved, but I discovered one I didn't think about before. I'd like to know if anyone has a best practice for handling it.
Here's a simple example:
// Here's the parent object
var MyObject = {
registry: {},
flatAttribute: null,
create: function () {
var o, F = function () {};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
return o;
}
};
// instance is an empty object that inherits
// from MyObject
var instance = MyObject.create();
// Attributes can be set on instance without modifying MyObject
instance.flatAttribute = "This is going to be applied to the instance";
// registry doesn't exist on instance, but it exists on
// instance.prototype. MyObject's registry attribute gets
// dug up the prototype chain and altered. It's not possible
// to tell that's happening just by examining this line.
instance.registry.newAttribute = "This is going to be applied to the prototype";
// Inspecting the parent object
// prints "null"
console.log(MyObject.flatAttribute);
// prints "This is going to be applied to the prototype"
console.log(MyObject.registry.newAttribute);
I want to feel safe that any changes that appear to be made to the instance don't propagate up the inheritance change. This is not the case when the attribute is an object and I'm setting a nested property.
A solution is to re-initialize all object attributes on the instance. However, one of the stated advantages of using this pattern is removing re-initialization code from the constructor. I'm thinking about cloning all the object attributes of the parent and setting them on the instance within the create() function:
{ create: function () {
var o, a, F = function () {};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
for (a in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(a) && typeof this[a] === 'object') {
// obviously deepclone would need to be implemented
o[a] = deepclone(this[a]);
}
}
return o;
} };
Is there a better way?

There is a very simple solution to ensuring that they are instance variables only, which is to use the this keyword in the constructor.
var MyObject = {
flatAttribute: null,
create: function () {
var o, F = function () {
this.registry = {}
};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
return o;
}
};
this ensures that all properties of "instance.registry.*" are local to the instance because the lookup order for javascript opjects is as follows.
object -> prototype -> parent prototype ...
so by adding a variable to the instance in the constructor function named "registry" that will always be found first.
another solution, which I think is more elegant is to not use crockford's (java style) constructors and use a layout that reflects javascripts object system more naturally. most of those gotchas are from the misfit between practice and language.
// instance stuff
var F = function () {
this.registry = {}
};
F.prototype = {
// static attributes here
flatAttribute: null,
methodA: function(){
// code here 'this' is instance object
this.att = 'blah';
}
};
var instanceA = new F();
instanceA.registry['A'] = 'hi';
var instanceB = new F();
instanceB.registry['B'] = 'hello';
instanceA.registry.A == 'hi'; // true
instanceB.registry.B == 'hello'; // true
F.prototype.registry == undefined; // true

Will this give you the expected result? Here I am not using an Object literal, but an instantly instantiated constructor function for the parent object (Base):
var Base = ( function(){
function MyObject(){
this.registry = {},
this.flatAttribute = null;
if (!MyObject.prototype.create)
MyObject.prototype.create = function(){
return new this.constructor();
};
}
return new MyObject;
} )(),
// create 2 instances from Base
instance1 = Base.create(),
instance2 = Base.create();
// assign a property to instance1.registry
instance1.registry.something = 'blabla';
// do the instance properties really belong to the instance?
console.log(instance1.registry.something); //=> 'blabla'
console.log(instance2.registry.something === undefined); //=> true
But it's all a bit virtual. If you don't want to use the new operator (I think that was te whole idea of it), the following offers you a way to do that without the need for a create method :
function Base2(){
if (!(this instanceof Base2)){
return new Base2;
}
this.registry = {},
this.flatAttribute = null;
if (!Base2.prototype.someMethod){
var proto = Base2.prototype;
proto.someMethod = function(){};
//...etc
}
}
//now the following does the same as before:
var instance1 = Base2(),
instance2 = Base2();
// assign a property to instance1.registry
instance1.registry.something = 'blabla';
// do the instance properties really belong to the instance?
console.log(instance1.registry.something); //=> 'blabla'
console.log(instance2.registry.something === undefined); //=> true
Example in a jsfiddle

I always like to keep in mind that object.Create is one option, and not the only way of achieving non-classical inheritance in javascript.
For myself, I always find that Object.create works best when I want to inherit elements from the parent objects prototype chain (i.e. methods that I'd like to be able to apply to the inheriting object).
--
For simple "Own Property" inheritance, Object.create is largely unnecessary. When I want to inherit own properties, i prefer to use the popular Mixin & Extend patterns (which simply copy one object's own properties to another, without worrying about prototype or "new").
In the Stoyan Stefanov book "Javascript Patterns" he gives an example of a deep extend function that does what you're looking for recursively, and includes support for properties that are arrays as well as standard key/value objects:
function extendDeep(parent, child){
var i,
toStr = Object.prototype.toString,
astr = "[object Array]";
child = child || {};
for (i in parent) {
if (parent.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
if (typeof parent[i] === "object") {
child[i] = (toStr.call(parent[i]) === astr) ? [] : {};
extendDeep(parent[i], child[i]);
} else {
child[i] = parent[i];
}
}
}
return child;
}
If you're using jQuery, jQuery.extend() has an optional "deep" argument that lets you extend an object in near-identical fashion.

i think you're using prototypal inheritance to simulate a classic, Object Oriented inheritance.
What are you trying to do is to stop the prototype method lookup which limits its expressiveness, so why using it? You can achieve the same effect by using this functional pattern:
var MyObject = function() {
// Declare here shared vars
var global = "All instances shares me!";
return {
'create': function() {
var flatAttribute;
var register = {};
return {
// Declare here public getters/setters
'register': (function() {
return register;
})(),
'flatAttribute': (function() {
return flatAttribute;
})(),
'global': (function() {
return global;
})()
};
}
};
}();
var instance1 = MyObject.create();
var instance2 = MyObject.create();
instance1.register.newAttr = "This is local to instance1";
instance2.register.newAttr = "This is local to instance2";
// Print local (instance) var
console.log(instance1.register.newAttr);
console.log(instance2.register.newAttr);
// Print global var
console.log(instance1.global);
console.log(instance2.global);
Code on jsFiddle