Develop Reference

binding an instance method vs wrapping in an anonymous function

[This is related to Bound function instead of closure to inject extra arguments, but that was neither clearly asked nor answered.]
I'm calling a function that expects a function as its argument. I want to pass a method from my class, bound to an instance of my class. To make it clear, assume my class looks like:
var MyClass = function() {}
MyClass.prototype.myMethod = function() { ... }
var my_instance = new MyClass();
Is there any substantive difference between using bind:
doSomething(my_instance.myMethod.bind(my_instance))
and wrapping the call in an anonymous function:
doSomething(function() { my_instance.myMethod(); })
?

If a prototype within your class needs to generate a callback, it may not know its instance's name. As a result, you'll need to use this, but the value of this depends on where the callback was executed.
Consider the following example:
var MyClass = function (x) { this.something = x; };
MyClass.prototype.makeCall = function () {
var myBadCallback = function() { console.log(this.something); };
var myGoodCallback = function() { console.log(this.something); }.bind(this);
// When called, the value of "this" points to... we don't know
callMeBack( myBadCallback );
// When called, the value of "this" points to this instance
callMeBack( myGoodCallback );
};
function callMeBack( callback ) { callback(); };
var foo = new MyClass('Hello World!');
var bar = new MyClass('Goodbye!');
// Probably prints "undefined", then prints "Hello World!"
foo.makeCall();
// Probably prints "undefined", then prints "Goodbye!"
bar.makeCall();
In the above example, the first output probably prints undefined because the context (what this refers to) has changed by the time the callback has executed.
This example may seem contrived, but these sort of situations do arise, a common case being AJAX callbacks.

What is a best practice for ensuring "this" context in Javascript?

Here's a sample of a simple Javascript class with a public and private method (fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/gY4mh/).
function Example() {
function privateFunction() {
// "this" is window when called.
console.log(this);
}
this.publicFunction = function() {
privateFunction();
}
}
ex = new Example;
ex.publicFunction();
Calling the private function from the public one results in "this" being the window object. How should I ensure my private methods are called with the class context and not window? Would this be undesirable?

Using closure. Basically any variable declared in function, remains available to functions inside that function :
var Example = (function() {
function Example() {
var self = this; // variable in function Example
function privateFunction() {
// The variable self is available to this function even after Example returns.
console.log(self);
}
self.publicFunction = function() {
privateFunction();
}
}
return Example;
})();
ex = new Example;
ex.publicFunction();

Another approach is to use "apply" to explicitly set what the methods "this" should be bound to.
function Test() {
this.name = 'test';
this.logName = function() {
console.log(this.name);
}
}
var foo = {name: 'foo'};
var test = new Test();
test.logName()
// => test
test.logName.apply(foo, null);
// => foo
Yet another approach is to use "call":
function Test() {
this.name = 'test';
this.logName = function() {
console.log(this.name);
}
}
var foo = {name: 'foo'};
var test = new Test();
test.logName()
// => test
test.logName.call(foo, null);
// => foo
both "apply" and "call" take the object that you want to bind "this" to as the first argument and an array of arguments to pass in to the method you are calling as the second arg.

It is worth understanding how the value of this in javascript is determined in addition to just having someone tell you a code fix. In javascript, this is determined the following ways:
If you call a function via an object property as in object.method(), then this will be set to the object inside the method.
If you call a function directly without any object reference such as function(), then this will be set to either the global object (window in a browser) or in strict mode, it will be set to undefined.
If you create a new object with the new operator, then the constructor function for that object will be called with the value of this set to the newly created object instance. You can think of this as the same as item 1 above, the object is created and then the constructor method on it is called.
If you call a function with .call() or .apply() as in function.call(xxx), then you can determine exactly what this is set to by what argument you pass to .call() or .apply(). You can read more about .call() here and .apply() here on MDN.
If you use function.bind(xxx) this creates a small stub function that makes sure your function is called with the desired value of this. Internally, this likely just uses .apply(), but it's a shortcut for when you want a single callback function that will have the right value of this when it's called (when you aren't the direct caller of the function).
In a callback function, the caller of the callback function is responsible for determining the desired value of this. For example, in an event handler callback function, the browser generally sets this to be the DOM object that is handling the event.
There's a nice summary of these various methods here on MDN.
So, in your case, you are making a normal function call when you call privateFunction(). So, as expected the value of this is set as in option 2 above.
If you want to explictly set it to the current value of this in your method, then you can do so like this:
var Example = (function() {
function Example() {
function privateFunction() {
// "this" is window when called.
console.log(this);
}
this.publicFunction = function() {
privateFunction.call(this);
}
}
return Example;
})();
ex = new Example;
ex.publicFunction();
Other methods such as using a closure and defined var that = this are best used for the case of callback functions when you are not the caller of the function and thus can't use 1-4. There is no reason to do it that way in your particular case. I would say that using .call() is a better practice. Then, your function can actually use this and can behave like a private method which appears to be the behavior you seek.

I guess most used way to get this done is by simply caching (storing) the value of this in a local context variable
function Example() {
var that = this;
// ...
function privateFunction() {
console.log(that);
}
this.publicFunction = function() {
privateFunction();
}
}
a more convenient way is to invoke Function.prototype.bind to bind a context to a function (forever). However, the only restriction here is that this requires a ES5-ready browser and bound functions are slightly slower.
var privateFunction = function() {
console.log(this);
}.bind(this);

I would say the proper way is to use prototyping since it was after all how Javascript was designed. So:
var Example = function(){
this.prop = 'whatever';
}
Example.prototype.fn_1 = function(){
console.log(this.prop);
return this
}
Example.prototype.fn_2 = function(){
this.prop = 'not whatever';
return this
}
var e = new Example();
e.fn_1() //whatever
e.fn_2().fn_1() //not whatever
Here's a fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/BFm2V/

If you're not using EcmaScript5, I'd recommend using Underscore's (or LoDash's) bind function.

In addition to the other answers given here, if you don't have an ES5-ready browser, you can create your own "permanently-bound function" quite simply with code like so:
function boundFn(thisobj, fn) {
return function() {
fn.apply(thisobj, arguments);
};
}
Then use it like this:
var Example = (function() {
function Example() {
var privateFunction = boundFn(this, function() {
// "this" inside here is the same "this" that was passed to boundFn.
console.log(this);
});
this.publicFunction = function() {
privateFunction();
}
}
return Example;
}()); // I prefer this order of parentheses
Voilà -- this is magically the outer context's this instead of the inner one!
You can even get ES5-like functionality if it's missing in your browser like so (this does nothing if you already have it):
if (!Function.prototype.bind) {
Function.prototype.bind = function (thisobj) {
var that = this;
return function() {
that.apply(thisobj, arguments);
};
}:
}
Then use var yourFunction = function() {}.bind(thisobj); exactly the same way.
ES5-like code that is fully compliant (as possible), checking parameter types and so on, can be found at mozilla Function.prototype.bind. There are some differences that could trip you up if you're doing a few different advanced things with functions, so read up on it at the link if you want to go that route.

I would say assigning self to this is a common technique:
function Example() {
var self = this;
function privateFunction() {
console.log(self);
}
self.publicFunction = function() {
privateFunction();
};
}
Using apply (as others have suggested) also works, though it's a bit more complex in my opinion.
It might be beyond the scope of this question, but I would also recommend considering a different approach to JavaScript where you actually don't use the this keyword at all. A former colleague of mine at ThoughtWorks, Pete Hodgson, wrote a really helpful article, Class-less JavaScript, explaining one way to do this.

Unable to access the object using `this`. `this` points to `window` object

I have this Javascript constructor-
function TestEngine() {
this.id='Foo';
}
TestEngine.prototype.fooBar = function() {
this.id='bar';
return true;
}
TestEngine.prototype.start = function() {
this.fooBar();
}
TestEngine.prototype.startMethod = function() {
inter = setInterval(this.start, 200);
}
var test = new TestEngine();
test.startMethod();
Gives me this error -
Uncaught TypeError: Object [object global] has no method 'fooBar'
I tried console.log and found out that when I call this.start from within setInterval, this points to the window object. Why is this so?

The this pointer can point to one of many things depending upon the context:
In constructor functions (function calls preceded by new) this points to the newly created instance of the constructor.
When a function is called as a method of an object (e.g. obj.funct()) then the this pointer inside the function points to the object.
You can explicitly set what this points to by using call, apply or bind.
If none of the above then the this pointer points to the global object by default. In browsers this is the window object.
In your case you're calling this.start inside setInterval. Now consider this dummy implementation of setInterval:
function setInterval(funct, delay) {
// native code
}
It's important to understand that start is not being called as this.start. It's being called as funct. It's like doing something like this:
var funct = this.start;
funct();
Now both these functions would normally execute the same, but there's one tiny problem - the this pointer points to the global object in the second case while it points to the current this in the first.
An important distinction to make is that we're talking about the this pointer inside start. Consider:
this.start(); // this inside start points to this
var funct = this.start;
funct(); // this inside funct (start) point to window
This is not a bug. This is the way JavaScript works. When you call a function as a method of an object (see my second point above) the this pointer inside the function points to that object.
In the second case since funct is not being called as a method of an object the fourth rule is applied by default. Hence this points to window.
You can solve this problem by binding start to the current this pointer and then passing it to setInterval as follows:
setInterval(this.start.bind(this), 200);
That's it. Hope this explanation helped you understand a little bit more about the awesomeness of JavaScript.

Here is a neat way to do OOP with javascript:
//Global Namespace:
var MyNamespace = MyNamespace || {};
//Classes:
MyNamespace.MyObject = function () {
this.PublicVar = 'public'; //Public variable
var _privatVar = 'private'; //Private variable
//Public methods:
this.PublicMethod = function () {
}
//Private methods:
function PrivateMethod() {
}
}
//USAGE EXAMPLE:
var myObj = new MyNamespace.MyObject();
myObj.PublicMethod();
This way you encapsulate your methods and variables into a namespace/class to make it much easier use and maintain.
Therefore you could write your code like this:
var MyNamespace = MyNamespace || {};
//Class: TestEngine
MyNamespace.TestEngine = function () {
this.ID = null;
var _inter = null;
//Public methods:
this.StartMethod = function (id) {
this.ID = id;
_inter = setInterval(Start, 1000);
}
//Private methods:
function Start() {
FooBar();
console.log(this.ID);
}
function FooBar() {
this.ID = 'bar';
return true;
}
}
//USAGE EXAMPLE:
var testEngine = new MyNamespace.TestEngine();
testEngine.StartMethod('Foo');
console.log(testEngine.ID);
Initially, the ID is set to 'Foo'
After 1 second the ID is set to 'bar'
Notice all variables and methods are encapsulated inside the TestEngine class.

Try this:
function TestEngine() {
this.id='Foo';
}
TestEngine.prototype.fooBar = function() {
this.id='bar';
return true;
}
TestEngine.prototype.start = function() {
this.fooBar();
}
TestEngine.prototype.startMethod = function() {
var self = this;
var inter = setInterval(function() {
self.start();
}, 200);
}
var test = new TestEngine();
test.startMethod();
setInterval calls start function with window context. It means when start gets executed, this inside start function points to window object. And window object don't have any method called fooBar & you get the error.
Anonymous function approach:
It is a good practice to pass anonymous function to setInterval and call your function from it. This will be useful if your function makes use of this.
What I did is, created a temp variable self & assigned this to it when it is pointing your TestEngine instance & calling self.start() function with it.
Now inside start function, this will be pointing to your testInstance & everything will work as expected.
Bind approach:
Bind will make your life easier & also increase readability of your code.
TestEngine.prototype.startMethod = function() {
setInterval(this.start.bind(this), 200);
}

Consequences of Dynamically rewriting a function in javascript?

In javascript, you can rewrite a function, like so:
function foo() {
setTimeout(function() {
alert('sup stallion');
foo = function() { //rewrite foo to nolonger wait 4 seconds to alert.
alert('sup stallion');
}
}, 4000);
}
Obviously this is a contrived example, but is there anything conceptually wrong with this approach (other than a race condition).

Self modifying code can be confusing, and hard to debug, so it's generally avoided.
Other than that there is no problem, and no race condition either.

One thing I noticed while testing your code. Consider this:
setInterval(foo, 6000);
Function foo is being passed to setInterval before it was modified, and the original foo will run every 6 seconds, even after the binding has been updated.
On the other hand, the code below will run the original function only on the first call (which updates the binding). Subsequent calls will invoke the updated version:
setInterval(function(){foo();}, 6000);
Looks obvious, but could be hard to debug...

Dynamic function rewriting can be used as a form of lazy initialization, however there is a catch:
function Foo() {...}
Foo.prototype = {
bar: function () {
//some initialized variables to close over
var a, b, c, ...;
Foo.prototype.bar = function () {
//do stuff with variables
};
Foo.prototype.bar.call(this);
}
};
While this code is relatively straight-forward to understand, and would be used as:
var f = new Foo();
f.bar(); //initializes `bar` function
f.bar(); //uses initialized `bar` function
it has a hidden issue:
var f = new Foo(),
g = {};
//passing by reference before the function was initialized will behave poorly
g.bar = f.bar;
f.bar(); //initializes `bar` function
g.bar(); //re-initializes `bar` function
f.bar(); //uses initialized `bar` function
g.bar(); //re-initializes `bar` function
It's for this reason that any initialization needed for a function is typically done using a module pattern:
function Foo() {...}
Foo.prototype = {
bar: (function () {
var a, b, c, ..., fn;
//some initialized variables to close over
fn = function () {
//do stuff with variables
};
return fn;
}())
};
The module pattern has the disadvantage of calling the initialization code immediately, but wont have the issues associated with the function reference.

Function Objection Notation?

I was wondering whether there is any performance / advantage of writing javascript in this format ?
var myFuncs = {
var firstFun = function() {
// do something
},
var secondFunc = function() {
// do something
},
var thirdFunc = function() {
// do something
}
}
So they can be called like
myFuncs.firstFun();
I'm trying to understand how this is more advantageous [other than code readability] ?

Function vs Object declaration
You can't use that particular syntax, the correct form is:
var myFuncs = {
firstFn: function () {},
secondFn: function () {},
...
};
The advantage to writing functions within an object has to do with namespacing and context. If you wrote:
var firstFn = function () {};
-or-
function firstFn() {}
the function would be defined at window.firstFn. Adding the functions on myFuncs makes the functions accessible at window.myFuncs.firstFn. If you want your JavaScript to work with other scripts you wouldn't want to have your foo function conflict with someone elses foo function:
<script src="a.js">
function foo() {...}
</script>
<script src="b.js">
function foo() {...} //this script would overwrite the foo function in a.js
</script>
<script src="c.js">
var bar = { //this script would be accessed at bar.foo()
foo: function () {..}
}
</script>
The calling context (this) of the function will also be different:
function foo() {
console.log(this); //window
}
var bar = {
foo: function () {
console.log(this); //bar object
}
}
Closure Syntax
What you may be getting confused with is the syntax for declaring functions within a closure:
(function () {
var foo = function () {...};
foo();
}());
In this case the closure is used to prevent the function from polluting the global scope (window.foo will not be set). This allows multiple scripts to use the same function names without worrying about being overridden.
OOP Syntax
The object syntax is often used to define the prototype for a JavaScript "constructor". In JS all functions can be called as a constructor simply by using the new keyword when the function is called:
function foo() {...}
var f = new foo(); //don't do it this way
For readability/maintainability/consistency you should always name your constructor using PascalCase:
function Foo() {...} //tells other developers this is a constructor
function bar() {...} //tells other developers this is a function
var f = new Foo();
var b = bar();
Without getting too lost in the details of how prototype works, you can assign methods to be shared across every instantiated object of a function by assigning an object to the function's prototype property:
function Foo() {...}
Foo.prototype = { //note the use of the object declaration for the functions
bar: function () {...},
baz: function () {...},
...
};
var f = new Foo();
f.bar(); //calls the bar function that was defined in the prototype

I think what you're asking is for advantages between declaring all of your functions globally, vs putting them all into an object. There is no performance difference. The main reason why people generally suggest adding them all into an object is to not clutter up the global space.
Think about it this way. If you create a global function named init in a javascript library, and make it global. Then if someone else does the same, it will overwrite your init. But, if you put it in an object named someJSLibrary, the odds of some other code overwriting your functions are much less.