Develop Reference

Object Oriented JavaScript programming

I have been trying to learn OOP with JavaScript before I start attempting to learn backbone.js.
I want to be able to data bind but I can't seem to get it to work.
I've just made a simple protoype of a budget website that you can put in a budget and input how much you've spent, and it will show if you've gone over.
function BudgetItem(spent, budget){
this.setSpent = function(spent){
this.spent = spent;
}
this.setBudget = function(budget){
this.budget = budget;
}
this.getSpent = function(){
return this.spent;
}
this.getBudget = function(){
return this.budget;
}
}
function BudgetType(type){
this.getType = function(){
return type;
}
}
BudgetType.prototype = new BudgetItem();
$(document).ready(function(){
var food = new BudgetType('food');
$('.budget').html(food.getBudget());
$('.editbudget').change(function(){
food.setBudget($('.editbudget').data())
});
})
That's my code thus far. I'm not sure if I'm doing it right. Am I supposed to extend things? Also, can someone explain how to dynamically data bind without a library?

First I'll give you some theory. A Javascript function is a dynamic object, just like Object is, and a new instance can be created using the new keyword much like you are doing in your listener. When this happens, the function itself will run as a constructor while the this keyword will be bound to the newly created object. What you're doing above then is in fact adding new properties on the fly as you're passing in their values for the first time... which is fine, but not very clear to another reader.
Now for the tricky part. Every function has a link to a "hidden" Prototype object. This is an anonymous (not accessible by name) object created by the JavaScript runtime and passed as a reference to the user object through the prototype property. This Prototype object also has a reference to the function through its constructor property. To test what I'm saying for yourself, try the following:
BudgetItem.prototype.constructor === BudgetItem // true
Putting it all together, you can now think of functions as constructors to (hidden) classes that are created for you behind the scenes, accessible through the function's prototype property. So, you could add the fields to the Prototype object directly as so:
function BudgetItem(spent) {
this.spent = spent
}
BudgetItem.prototype.setSpent = function(spent) { this.spent = spent };
BudgetItem.prototype.getSpent = function() { return this.spent };
Another problem is inheritance and passing parameters to the constructor. Again, your version is valid but you lose the ability to pass the spent and budget values when initializing a BudgetType. What I would do is forget prototypes and go:
function BudgetType(type, spent) {
var instance = new BudgetItem(spent);
instance.type = type;
return instance;
}
This is close to what Scott Sauyet suggested above but more powerful. Now you can pass both parameters (and more) and have a more complicated inheritance tree.
Finally, what you can do is create private (or pseudo-private, more accurately) properties by providing a getter to an otherwise automatic variable (one passed as an argument or initialised inside the function). This is a special feature of the language and it works like so:
function BudgetType(type, spent) {
var instance = new BudgetItem(spent);
instance.getType = function() {
return type;
}
return instance;
}
Now you can access the 'type' passed in the constructor by obj.getType() but cannot override the initial value. Even if you define obj.type = 'New Value' the getType() will return the initial parameter passed because it has a reference to another context which was created when the object was initialised and never got released due to the closure.
Hope that helps...

if you want all instances of objects to reference the same members/values you can use a closure:
// create a constrctor for you object wrapped in a closure
myCon = (function() {
// define shared members up here
var mySharedObj = new function () {
this.member = "a";
}();
// return the actual constructor
return function () {
this.mySharedObj = mySharedObj;
}
}());
// create two instances of the object
var a = new myCon();
var b = new myCon();
// Altering the shared object from one
a.mySharedObj.member = "b";
// Alters it for all
console.log(b.mySharedObj.member);
If you want to build objects from other objects(sort of like other languages' class whatever extends baseClass), but do not want them to share values via reference(instead a clone of values), you can use something like the following:
Object.prototype.extendsUpon = (function (_prop, _args) {
return function (base) {
for (var key in base) {
if (_prop.call(base, key)) {
this[key] = base[key];
}
}
function con(child){
this.constructor = child;
}
con.prototype = base.prototype;
this.prototype = new con(this);
this.__base__ = base.prototype;
var args = _args.call(arguments);
args.shift();
base.constructor.apply(this, args);
}
}(Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty, Array.prototype.slice));
Then to build objects ontop of objects:
// Base Object Constructor
function Fruit(name) {
this.fruitname = name;
}
Fruit.prototype.yum = function() {
return "I had an " + this.fruitname;
}
// Object constructor that derives from the Base Object
function Favorite() {
// Derive this object from a specified base object:
// #arg0 -> Object Constructor to use as base
// #arg1+ -> arguments passed to the BaseObject's constructor
this.extendsUpon(Fruit, "apple");
// From here proceed as usual
// To access members from the base object that have been over-written,
// use "this.__base__.MEMBER.apply(this, arguments)"
}
Favorite.prototype.yum = function() {
return this.__base__.yum.apply(this) + " and it was my favorite";
}
var mmm = new Favorite();
// Outputs: "I had an apple and it was my favorite"
mmm.yum();

What's the best way to create JavaScript classes? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Use of ‘prototype’ vs. ‘this’ in Javascript?
Object Oriented questions in Javascript
Can you please recommend which of the following is the best or their pros and cons?
Method 1
function User() {
this.name = "my name";
this.save = function() {
};
}
Method 2
function User() {
this.name = "my name";
}
User.prototype.save = function() {
}

Coming from a background in Java and PHP, I had initially struggled with the whole 'class' concept in JavaScript. Here are a few things to think about.
Construction
First, since you're likely going to be defining your classes as..
Customer = function () {}
Customer.prototype = new Person();
You will end up running into all sorts of nightmares of code if you are defining properties and methods during construction. The reason being is that a piece of code like Customer.prototype = new Person(); requires that the Person be called in the Customer constructor for true inheritance.. otherwise you'll end up having to know what the original one sets at all times. Take the following example:
Person = function (name) {
this.name = name;
this.getName = function () {return this.name}
}
Customer = function (name) {
this.name = name;
}
Customer.prototype = new Person();
Now we're going to update Person to also set whether they are 'new':
Person = function (name, isNew) {
this.name = name;
this.isNew = isNew;
this.getName = function () {return (this.isNew ? "New " : "") + this.name; }
}
Now on any 'class' that is inheriting from the Person, you must update the constructor to follow form. You can get around that by doing something like:
Customer = function () {
Person.apply(this, arguments);
}
That will call 'Person' in the scope of the new 'Customer', allowing you to not have to know about the Person construction.
Speed
Take a look at these benchmarks: http://jsperf.com/inherited-vs-assigned.
Basically, what I am attempting to prove here is that if you're creating these objects en masse, your best route is to create them on the prototype. Creating them like:
Person = function (name) {
this.name = name;
this.getName = function () {return this.name}
}
is very slow, because for every object creation, it creates a new function - it doesn't simply look up the prototype chain for the already existing one. Conversely, if you've got only a few objects that the methods are called extremely frequently on, defining them locally helps with the speed lost by looking up the prototype chain.
Shared properties
This always gets me. Let's say you've got something like the following:
Person = function () {
this.jobs = {};
this.setJob = function (jobTitle, active) {this.jobs[jobTitle] = active; }
}
Employee = function () {}
Employee.prototype = new Person();
var bob = new Employee();
bob.setJob('janitor', true);
var jane = new Employee();
console.log(jane.jobs);
Guess what? Jane's a janitor! No joke! Here's why. Since you didn't define this.jobs as being a new object on instantiation of the Employee, it's now just looking up the prototype chain until it finds 'jobs' and is using it as is. Fun, right?
So, this is useful if you want to keep track of instances, but for the most part you're going to find it incredibly frustrating. You can get around that by doing the following:
Employee = function () { Person.apply(this); }
This forces 'Person' to create a new 'this.jobs'.
Private variables
Since there's nothing that's really "private" in JavaScript, the only way you can get private variables is to create them in the constructor, and then make anything that relies on them initialize in the constructor.
Person = function () {
var jobs = {};
this.setJob = function (jobTitle, active) {jobs[jobTitle] = active; }
this.getJob = function (jobTitle) { return jobs[jobTitle]; }
}
However, this also means that you must call that constructor on every instantiation of an inherited class.
Suggestion
http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/
This is a super basic class setup. It's easy. It works. And it'll do what you need it to do 90% of the time without having to deal with all the insanity JavaScript has to offer :)
</rant>

Best is a very subjective term.
Method 1 gives the possibility of truly private variables. e.g :
function User() {
var name = "fred";
this.getName = function () { return name;};
}
Method 2 will use less memory, as a single save function is shared by all User objects.
'Best' will be determined by your specific requirements.

JavaScript is an "Object Based" language, not a "Class Based" language. Shared behaviours, which is the class concept, are implemented by linking prototypes.
Method 1 does NOT create a class. Every time you invoke it, you create attributes and functions as defined and they are NOT shared with other "instances". If you replace this.save then only the one instance will have altered behaviour.
Method 2 implements shared behaviours. Therefore it is what people associate with classes and instances. If you replace this.save withe a different function, then all derived instances will immediately have the new behaviour.
If "best" means no memory consuming redefinitions of functions and sharing common behaviours (which is what class based programming tends to equate to) the Method 2 is the way to go.

As others have mentioned, there are two main differences:
Method 1 will create a new function for every instance of User
Method 1 will be able to access local variables in the constructor's scope
Here's an example to demonstrate these:
function User() {
var name = "my name";
this.foo = function() {
// one function per User instance
// can access 'name' variable
};
}
User.prototype.bar = function() {
// one function shared by all User instances
// cannot access 'name' variable
};
var a = new User();
var b = new User();
console.log(a.foo === b.foo); // false; each instance has its own foo()
console.log(a.bar === b.bar); // true; both instances use the same bar()

Javascript apply — Inheriting classes

The code below is adapted from this answer
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
var errorA = new ErrorMessageClass();
var errorB = new ErrorMessageClass();
errorA.setPrivate('A');
errorB.setPrivate('B');
console.log(errorA.getPrivate());
console.log(errorB.getPrivate());
The original post did not have the MessageClass.apply(this, arguments); since the purpose was to show how inheritance can go wrong in Javascript.
My question is, is saying: ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass(); before the ErrorMessageClass constructor has even been declared bad practice? My understanding is that calling undeclared identifiers like that causes a silent declaration to occur, with the result being placed on the global window object, which I understand is bad.
Is this form:
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
considered to be better practice? This link shows the code written as it was originally above, which is why I even tried it. Does this blogger know something I don't (quite likely)?
EDIT
Lots of great info in the answers below, but I did want to highlight this link which really explains things perfectly

Usually, to avoid this confusion, you would just attach the prototype after, but as Adam Rackis pointed out, function declarations are hoisted, like var statements.
However, you should not instantiate the base object as the prototype. If your base object takes arguments, what are you supposed to use? Use an empty "surrogate" constructor
// Used to setup inheritance
function surrogate () {};
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
// The key steps to creating clean inheritance
surrogate.prototype = MessageClass;
// Sets up inheritance without instantiating a base class object
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new surrogate();
// Fix the constructor property
ErrorMessageClass.prototype.constructor = ErrorMessageClass
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
There's much more to be said. http://js-bits.blogspot.com/2010/08/javascript-inheritance-done-right.html

It works because function declarations are evaluated first. If you tried to move these classes under an object literal "namespace" the first version would fail.
I personally find the second method to be much easier to read - also, don't forget to set the sub-class' prototype.constructor property back to itself. Personally, I use an inherits() method on the Function prototype which wraps up essentially the type of code you're using here.

Object Creation in javascript

Just for the kicks i am trying to create a simple data object in javascript. Here is the code.
var roverObject = function(){
var newRover = {};
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
newRover.setName = function(newName) {
name = newName;
};
newRover.getName = function() {
return name;
};
newRover.setDirection = function(newDirection) {
direction = newDirection;
};
newRover.getDirection = function() {
return direction;
};
newRover.setXCord = function(newXCord) {
xCord = newXCord;
};
newRover.getXCord = function() {
return xCord;
};
newRover.setYCord = function(newYCord) {
yCord = newYCord;
};
newRover.getYCord = function() {
return yCord;
};
newRover.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
};
return newRover;
};
rover1 = new roverObject();
rover2 = new roverObject();
rover1.setName("Mars Rover");
rover1.setDirection("NORTH");
rover1.setXCord(2);
rover1.setYCord(2);
console.log(rover1.where());
console.log(rover1);
rover2.setName("Moon Rover");
rover2.setDirection("SOUTH");
rover2.setXCord(1);
rover2.setYCord(1);
console.log(rover2.where());
console.log(rover2);
There are few questions that I have around this creation.
I want to create an object where the properties/attributes of object are private and not visible to world. Am I successful in doing that? Can I really not access the object attributes?
Is there a better way to create this kind of object?
If I want to inherit this object, I should do a newObject.prototype = roverObjectwill that work? And will that make sense most of all.
Finally I have a wierd problem. Notice the last method of objet "where" which returns a concatenated string. Here I tried following code instead.
newRover.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
}();
and then did a following console.log
console.log(rover1.where);
console.log(rover2.where);
It threw following error for me:
cannot access optimized closure
Why would it say that? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for all the help. Any review comments would be appreciated too!
Cheers

Am I successful in doing that? Can I really not access the object attributes?
Indeed. You don't have object attributes, you have local variables in the roverObject function. Local variables can't be accessed from outside, only from the functions inside the roverObject function that have a closure over them.
That you are calling roverObject as a constructor, with new roverObject, is irrelevant, as you are returning a different object from the function. Saying var rover1= roverObject() without the new would do exactly the same thing. Notably the object returned by [new] roverObject is a plain Object as you created it from {}; rover1 instanceof roverObject is false.
If you wanted instanceof to work, you would have to call with new, and use this instead of newRover in the constructor function.
If I want to inherit this object, I should do a newObject.prototype = roverObject will that work? And will that make sense most of all.
No. You currently have no allowance for prototyping. You are using a separate copy of each method for each instance of the roverObject. You can do certainly objects this way but it's a different approach than prototyping. If you wanted to make something like a subclass of roverObject in the arrangement you have now, you'd say something like:
function AdvancedRover() {
var rover= new roverObject();
rover.doResearch= function() {
return rover.where()+' and is doing advanced research';
};
return rover;
}
Note since the ‘private’ local variables in the base class constructor really are private, even the subclass cannot get at them. There's no ‘protected’.
newRover.where = function(){ ... }();
What's that trying to do? I can't get the error you do; all the above does is assigns the string with the location to where (before the setter methods have been called, so it's full of undefineds).
Is there a better way to create this kind of object?
Maybe. see this question for a discussion of class/instance strategies in JavaScript.

Q1: you can create 'private' members in javascript 'classes'. In javascript, privacy is not determined by any access specifier. Instead, access needs to be specifically instrumented. Example:
function MyClass() {
this.val = 100; // public;
var privateVal = 200;
function getVal() { return this.val; } // private method;
this.getPrivateVal = function() { // public method, accessor to private variable
return privateVal;
}
}
Object scope in javascript is governed by a queer concept called closures. AFAIK, there is no parallel concept in any other popular launguage like C+/Java etc.
While I understand what closures are, I cannot put it in words. Perhaps a demonstration will help you:
function closureDemo() {
var done=false;
function setDone() { done=true; }
doLater(setDone);
}
function doLater(func) { setTimeout(func,1000); }
closureDemo();
now, while setDone is called from within doLater, it can still access done in closureDemo, even though done is not in scope (in the conventional procedural sense).
I think you will understand more when you read this.
Q2: I can only say what I do; I don't know if it is better or not. If I wrote your code, it would look like this:
function RoverObject() {
var newRover = {}; // privates
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
this.setName = function(newName) {
name = newName;
};
this.getName = function() {
return name;
};
this.setDirection = function(newDirection) {
direction = newDirection;
};
// and so on...
this.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
};
}
var rover1 = new RoverObject();
Points to note:
capitalization of "class name"'s first letter
use of this instead of roverObject
this function is a pure constructor. it returns nothing.
Q3: if you want to do inheritance, then my method (use of this) will not work. Instead, the public methods should be a part of the prototype of RoverObject. Read this. Excellent material.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: There is a problem with the way your code is doing work. Problems:
your function does not do what its name suggests. Its name had better be createRoverObject, because that's exactly what it is doing. It is not working like a class constructor
the methods supported by your class are part of the object, but the data members are not. While this may work (and it is not, as your console.log() problem suggests), it is not a good way to implement a class in javascript. The problem here is of closures. Again, i'm unable to articulate what the problem specifically is, but I can smell it.

With regards to 4. - you are trying to log the function, not the result of calling the function. Should be console.log(rover1.where()); My guess firebug(I assume it's firebug's console.log) does not like to log function definitions.
EDIT Oh I get it, you are actually executing the where funcion when you assign rover.where. Are you trying to get what looks like a property to actually be a function? If that's the case it won't work. It will have to be a function if you want it to be evaluated when it's called.
What happens in you case where gets executed in the constructor function. At that point you are still creating the roverObject closure and hence it's too early to access it's private variables.

This is just addressing point 1 of your post.
Here's a good article on javascript private members and more:
Private Members in JavaScript

Defining your object like this gives you private members.
function RolloverObject() {
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
this.setName = function(newName) { name = newName; };
this.getName = function() { return name; };
this.setDirection = function(newDirection) { direction = newDirection; };
this.getDirection = function() { return direction; };
this.setXCord = function(newXCord) { xCord = newXCord; };
this.getXCord = function() { return xCord; };
this.setYCord = function(newYCord) { yCord = newYCord; };
this.getYCord = function() { return yCord; };
this.where = function() {
return "Rover :: " + name + " is at Location(" + xCord + "," + yCord + ") pointing to " + direction;
};
}
var rolloverObject = new RolloverObject();

Better way to access private members in Javascript

After reading a bit on Javascript's prototypical inheritance model, I change my style of constructing a class from
var Some_Class = function() {
this.public_method = function() {
};
(function() {
// constructor
}).call(this)
}
to
var Some_Class = function() {
(function() {
// constructor
}).call(this)
}
Some_Class.prototype.public_method = function() {
};
Although I understand that this is a good practice, but I am not allowed to access private methods from the public method anymore
var Some_Class = function() {
var private_member = 'whatever';
(function() {
// constructor
}).call(this)
}
Some_Class.prototype.public_method = function() {
return private_member; // not possible
};
After reading through an article here (Closure-created constructor), then I came out with this
var Some_Class = function() {
var private_member = 'whatever',
private_method = function(_some_value) {
// private method implementation
};
if(!arguments.callee.prototype.public_method) {
arguments.callee.prototype.public_method = function() {
private_method.call(this, private_method);
};
}
(function() {
// constructor
}).call(this)
}
However, what are the drawbacks of doing this?! or is there a better way of doing this if I want to access private member in the public method?

My answer is a non-answer: there's no built-in private access in JavaScript but that's okay because YAGNI. Here's how I make private members in my code:
function Some_Class() {
this._private_member = 'whatever';
}
Some_Class.prototype._private_method = function() {
};
That's good enough. It's not really worth it to jump through hoops when the only real purpose of private is to protect yourself from... yourself.
(I say this having spent many hours myself playing around with every permutation of closures and prototyping, just as you are, and finally saying "screw it, it's not worth it".)

The use of function scope variables and closures to simulate private variables/functions is a well established idiom in the javascript community. If the variable is truly intended to be private, I see no drawback to this approach (although some claim that performant code on certain browsers/hosts has to pay attention to how many closures get created).
In your example, the private_method (and its environment) is shared across all objects - since your public_method closure is created only the first time the object is constructed (and bound to the constructor's prototype property that sets the created object's internal prototype chain) - so the private_method that is used is only the one that was created the first time.
Here is some sample code that will help illustrate what is going on:
var global = 1;
var Some_Class = function() {
var private_method = 'whatever';
var now = ++global;
print("outer now: " + now );
private_method = function(_some_value) {
// private method implementation
print("inner now: " + now);
};
if(!arguments.callee.prototype.public_method) {
arguments.callee.prototype.public_method = function() {
private_method.call(this, private_method);
};
}
(function() {
// constructor
}).call(this)
}
new Some_Class().public_method(); // outer now: 2, inner now: 2
new Some_Class().public_method(); // outer now: 3, inner now: 2
new Some_Class().public_method(); // outer now: 4, inner now: 2
Are you sure that is what you want?
If your private_method does not need to refer to the enclosing object's state, then I see little benefit in doing things the way you are doing.
What I usually do (if i have to use 'new' to create my object) is the following:
function MyClass() {
var private_var = 1;
function private_func()
{
}
this.public_func = function()
{
// do something
private_func();
}
this.public_var = 10;
}
var myObj = new MyClass();
The downside to this approach is that each time you construct the object via 'new' you re-create all the closures. But unless my profiler tells me that this design choice needs to be optimized, i prefer its simplicity and clarity.
Also I don't see the benefit in your code of doing the following either:
(function() { }).call(this); // call the constructor
Why are you creating a separate scope in your constructor?

If you have not done so already have a look at this JavaScript Module Pattern, which allows you to access private methods and variables from within the public functions, etc.

Echoing John Kugelman: It's impossible to create private members in javascript. Live with it. Even if you create a enclosure like this:
function SomeClass() {
var _private = 0;
this.public_acessor = function() {return _private};
}
Any user can still write:
SomeClass._not_private_anymore = 1;
SomeClass.public_acessor = function () {return this._not_private_anymore};
In the end, you can't trust any public member to be the same you declared. If someone is up to break your code, he will! Another user won't break your code only because it's useful.

Works with prototype, not just singleton. Problem is, when it's time to subclass, my subclass has no access to the privates