This question already has answers here:
Use of 'prototype' vs. 'this' in JavaScript?
(15 answers)
Closed last month.
In the below code,
function Person(first, last, age) {
this.firstName = first;
this.lastName = last;
this.age = age;
}
Person.prototype.planet = "Earth";
p1 = new Person("David", "Beckham", 39);
p2 = new Person("Lionel", "Messi", 30);
If multiple instances p1 p2 are created using constructor Person, then
How do I understand the difference about the property planet with property age? What difference it would make by adding property planet as this.planet in the constructor Person?
Note: Understanding prototype property
Consider situation when in the fututre we are going to change prototype property that is shared by all instances
function Person(first, last, age) {
this.firstName = first;
this.lastName = last;
this.age = age;
}
Person.prototype.planet = "Earth";
p1 = new Person("David", "Beckham", 39);
p2 = new Person("Lionel", "Messi", 30);
console.log(p1.planet) // Earth
Person.prototype.planet = "Mars"
console.log(p1.planet) // Mars
console.log(p1.planet === p2.planet) // true
Changing one property on prototype will change it in all instances
A prototype property will be part of any object created from the so-called prototype, and this includes prototype chain.
A instance property will be part of the whole instance, and in your case, it will part of any instance because you're adding it within the constructor function:
function A() {
this.x = 11;
}
var instance = new A();
instance.x = 11;
Both above cases are adding the property to the own object rather than in the prototype.
Furthermore, adding properties to the prototype has a side effect:
function A() {}
A.prototype.x = 11;
function B() {}
B.prototype = Object.create(A.prototype);
var instanceA = new A();
var instanceB = new B();
A.prototype.x = 12;
// Both "x" will hold 12
alert(instanceA.x);
alert(instanceB.x);
Learn more about prototype chain on MDN.
About some OP comment
So, In java terminology, age is an instance member and planet is a
static member. To define a static member, we use prototype property,
am I correct? –
This is a wrong statement.
Prototype properties aren't static, since prototypes are regular objects. It's just JavaScript uses prototype chain to implement inheritance and it relies in a standard property called prototype.
In JavaScript there're no statics. When you access any property, JavaScript's runtime will look for it through the prototype chain:
function A() {};
A.prototype.x = 11;
function B() {};
B.prototype = Object.create(A.prototype);
function C() {};
C.prototype = Object.create(B.prototype);
var instanceC = new C();
var x = instanceC.x;
// Once you request a property "x", the runtime will do the following process:
// 1) Is "x" in the own object? No, then 2)
// 2) Is "x" in current object's prototype? No, then 3)
// 3) Is "x" in the parent prototype? No, then 4)
// 4) And so on, until it reaches the top-level prototype, and if this has no
// "x" property, then runtime will return "undefined"
It's actually memory usage. Here are some images I have created depicting each problem.
In the image below, each instance of person is linked to the same prototype object. This saves memory if multiple instances are created pointing to the same object. However, if you change 'Earth' to 'Mars' every instance will have the same change.
In the image below each instance will point to a completely different property linked specifically to that instance. If you believe a specific planet can change names, you should do this.. otherwise use prototype because this will use more resources.
I've been reading Is JavaScript's "new" keyword considered harmful? and this Adobe Article on using prototypal inheritance rather than 'new'. The Adobe article has a 'new' example:
function Foo() {
this.name = "foo";
}
Foo.prototype.sayHello = function() {
alert("hello from " + this.name);
};
...that it replaces with:
var foo = {
name: "foo",
sayHello: function() {
alert("hello from " + this.name);
}
};
Here the 'sayHello' method isn't attached to the object's prototype. Doesn't this mean 'sayHello' gets unnecessarily duplicated in memory (I know V8 avoids this, but in older JS engines, for example) as it is copied to all objects that inherit from foo?
Shouldn't it be:
var foo = {
name: "foo",
prototype: {
sayHello: function() {
alert("hello from " + this.name);
}
}
};
Or similar?
The method is not attached to the prototype because this very object becomes the prototype that is attached to newly created objects with Object.create. And you don't need a prototype of the prototype.
Remember that Object.create doesn't deep clone objects. Rather, it is equivalent to something like
Object.create = function(proto) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = proto;
return new F();
}
(actual implementation is more complicated but this short version illustrates the idea)
All newly created objects "inherit" the method from the foo which acts as the prototype and there is no duplication here.
No, it won't get duplicated if you create another object using that as a protoype. The almost equivalent code using Object.create is actually slightly different, you are not using the prototype, you are just creating an object. To use prototypal inheritance, do the following. Note that using new still sets up the prototype chain so the title of the article you linked to is not very accurate and you are still sharing the properties on a single object.
var foo = {
name: "foo",
sayHello: function() {
alert("hello from " + this.name);
}
};
var extended = Object.create(foo);
var extended2 = Object.create(foo);
extended.name = "first";
extended2.name = "second";
extended.sayHello(); // hello from first
extended2.sayHello(); // hello from second
// Methods are shared, outputs true
console.log(extended.sayHello === extended2.sayHello)
// Now if you delete the property again, it will go up the chain
delete extended.name;
extended.sayHello(); // hello from foo
You could also just do
var extended = Object.create(Foo.prototype);
It would get duplicated if you create a constructor to get new instances instead of Object.create or new Foo
function createFoo() {
return {
name: "foo",
sayHello: function() {
alert("hello from " + this.name);
}
}
}
var a = createFoo();
var b = createFoo();
// The function objects are not shared
alert('Are functions the same? ' + a.sayHello === b.createFoo);
They would also not be shared if you use the closure approach to creating objects. Crockford suggests that to create truly private members. I don't use it because it doesn't use the prototype chain and inheritance is tricky to implement without just copying properties.
Function Foo() {
var name = 'foo';
this.sayHello = function () {
alert(name);
};
this.setName = function (newName) {
name = newName;
};
}
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
console.log(a.sayHello === b.sayHello); // outputs false
Going to answer my own question here, for my own notes and also to help explain to others:
Q. Using Object.create(), should exemplars have methods attached to their prototype property?
A. No, because Object.create(parentObject) itself sets up the parentObject as the prototype of a dynamically-created constructor.
Also: prototype is always a property on constructor Functions - not on regular Objects. Eg:
var someArray = [];
someArray.__proto__ === Array.prototype
Object.create() dynamically creates constructors, setting the prototype on them to the object in its first argument.
Suppose I have two constructor function:
var Person = function(xx,xx,xxx,xxxxxxx) {
//Person initialization
}
var Man = function(xx,xx,xxx,xxx) {
//Man initialization
}
And I want Man extends from Person.
The following is what I thought:
Given a created Man object:
var m=new Man("xx",....);
1) when a property of m is accessed,it will search it in Man.prototype.
2) If not find, It should find it in Man.prototype.__prop__.
So what I have do is make the Man.prototype.__prop__ linked to Person.prototype.
I know this is the common way:
function inherit(superClass) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = superClass.prototype;
return new F;
}
Man.prototype=inherit(Person);
But when I try this:
Man.prototype.prototype=Person.prototype.
Why it does not work?
It sounds like you actually want to link instances of Man to an instance of Person that retains any properties added in its constructor, in which case you might really want something like this:
function Person(a, b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
function Man() {}
Man.prototype = new Person("val1", "val2");
var m = new Man();
console.log(m.a);
...which prints val1.
Additional Ramblings
The purpose of inherit is to create an object from a function whose prototype is that of the given super class (without explicitly using new), which is exactly what it does. Therefore, the following prints string:
function Person() {}
Person.prototype.test = "string";
function Man() {}
function inherit(superClass) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = superClass.prototype;
return new F;
}
var t = inherit(Person);
console.log(t.test);
But you generally want to assign the returned object to another function's prototype:
Man.prototype = inherit(Person);
var m = new Man();
console.log(m.test);
...so that m.test also prints string, which means that objects created using Man are linked to Person's prototype).
Note that Man.prototype.prototype is undefined and -- this is the important part -- also meaningless. Functions have prototypes. Other objects (such as Man.prototype) do not. The prototype property is not magical in any other context. Assigning a value to a random object's prototype property doesn't do anything special. It's just another property.
Note also that the thing we returned from inherit is linked to Person by way of its prototype and has no access to any properties added to instances of Person.
How I do it (in regards to your example):
var Person = function () {
}
// Define "Person" methods
var Man = function () {
}
Man.prototype = new Person();
// Define "Man" methods
UPDATE
Regarding constructors with parameters: just found this SO question that can really help you figure it out (second answer, first part): JavaScript inheritance: when constructor has arguments.
There are quite a few generic methods to do that. I will provide three of them:
1.) Using Function object as a constructor and as a prototype object for inherited new objects. The implementation should look like as the following:
var person = {
toString : function() {
return this.firstName + ' ' + this.lastName;
}
}
function extend(constructor, obj) {
var newObj = Object.create(constructor);
for (var prop in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
newObj[prop] = obj[prop];
}
}
return newObj;
}
var man = extend(person,
{
sex: "male",
age: "22"
});
var name = extend(man,
{
firstName: "Simo",
lastName: "Endre"
});
name.man;
name.toString();
2.) In this case we'll use the Function object as the constructor for simulating the classical inheritance in a language like C# or Java. The prototype property of an object will be used in the role of a constructor and the the newly created object will inherit all the properties from the object prototype root. In this case the object's prototype has only one kind of augmentation role, the effective implementation is done in the function method.
var Person = function(firstName, lastName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
this.lastName = lastName;
}
Person.prototype.toString = function() {
return this.firstName + ' ' + this.lastName;
}
function inherit(func) {
// passing function arguments into an array except the first one which is the function object itself
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
// invoke the constructor passing the new Object and the rest of the arguments
var obj = Object.create(func.prototype);
func.apply(obj, args);
//return the new object
return obj;
}
var man = inherit(Person, "Simo", "Endre");
man.toString();
3.) The well known inheritance model:
function extend(o) {
function F() {}
// We'll set the newly created function prototype property to the object.
//This act as a constructor.
F.prototype = o;
// Using the `new` operator we'll get a new object whose prototype is o.
return new F();
};
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.