Douglas
Crockford
www.crockford.com
Five years ago I wrote Classical Inheritance in JavaScript (Chinese Italian Japanese). It showed that JavaScript is a class-free, prototypal language, and that it has sufficient expressive power to simulate a classical system. My programming style has evolved since then, as any good programmer's should. I have learned to fully embrace prototypalism, and have liberated myself from the confines of the classical model.
My journey was circuitous because JavaScript itself is conflicted
about its prototypal nature. In a prototypal system, objects inherit from objects.
JavaScript, however, lacks an operator that performs that operation. Instead
it has a new
operator, such that
new
f()
produces a new object that inherits from
f.prototype
This indirection was intended to make the language seem more familiar to classically trained programmers, but failed to do that, as we can see from the very low opinion Java programmers have of JavaScript. JavaScript's constructor pattern did not appeal to the classical crowd. It also obscured JavaScript's true prototypal nature. As a result, there are very few programmers who know how to use the language effectively.
Fortunately, it is easy to create an operator that implements true prototypal inheritance. It is a standard feature in my toolkit, and I highly recommend it for yours.
function object(o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }
The object
function untangles JavaScript's constructor pattern,
achieving true prototypal inheritance. It takes an old object as a parameter
and returns an empty new object that inherits from the old one. If we attempt
to obtain a member from the new object, and it lacks that key, then the old
object will supply the member. Objects inherit from objects. What could be more
object oriented than that?
So instead of creating classes, you make prototype objects, and then use the
object
function to make new instances. Objects are mutable in JavaScript,
so we can augment the new instances, giving them new fields and methods. These
can then act as prototypes for even newer objects. We don't need classes to
make lots of similar objects.
For convenience, we can create functions which will call the object
function for us, and provide other customizations such as augmenting the new
objects with privileged functions. I sometimes call
these maker functions. If we have a maker function that calls another
maker function instead of calling the object
function, then we
have a parasitic inheritance pattern.
I have found that by using these tools, coupled with JavaScript's lambdas and object quasi-literals, I can write well-structured programs that are large, complex, and efficient. The classical object model is by far the most popular today, but I think that the prototypal object model is more capable and offers more expressive power.
Learning these new patterns also made me a better classical programmer. Insights from the dynamic world can have application in the static.
2006-06-07
Here is another formulation:
Object.prototype.begetObject = function () { function F() {} F.prototype = this; return new F(); }; newObject = oldObject.begetObject();
2007-04-02
The problem with the object
function is that it is global,
and globals are clearly problematic. The problem with Object.prototype.begetObject
is that it trips up incompetent programs, and it can produce unexpected
results when begetObject
is overridden.
So I now prefer this formulation:
if (typeof Object.create !== 'function') { Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; } newObject = Object.create(oldObject);
2008-04-07