This blog post illustrates several JavaScript inheritance topics via an example: We start with naive implementations of a constructor Point and its sub-constructor ColorPoint and then improve them, step by step.
Objects
JavaScript is one of the few object-oriented languages that lets you directly create objects. In most other languages, you need a class to do so. Let us create an object for a point:
var point = {
x: 5,
y: 2,
dist: function () {
return Math.sqrt((this.x*this.x)+(this.y*this.y));
},
toString: function () {
return "("+this.x+", "+this.y+")";
}
};
The syntactic construct with the curly braces that creates the point is called an object initializer or an object literal. The object point has four properties (slots for data): x, y, dist, and toString. You can read the values of properties by writing the name of an object, followed by a dot, followed by the name of the property:
> point.x
5
Properties whose value are functions are called methods. Methods can be called by putting parentheses with arguments behind the name of a property:
> point.dist()
5.385164807134504
> point.toString()
'(5, 2)'
Constructors
If you don’t want to create just a single point, but several ones, then you need a factory for objects. In class-based languages such factories are called classes, in JavaScript they are called constructors. Every function foo can be invoked in two ways:- as a function: foo(arg1, arg2)
- as a constructor: new foo(arg, arg2)
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.dist = function () {
return Math.sqrt((this.x*this.x)+(this.y*this.y));
};
this.toString = function () {
return "("+this.x+", "+this.y+")";
};
}
When we execute new Point(), the constructor’s job is to set up the fresh object passed to it via the implicit parameter this. You can see that where we previously used an object initializer to define properties, we now add them via assignments to this. The fresh object is (implicitly) returned by the constructor and considered its instance:
> var p = new Point(3, 1);
> p instanceof Point
true
Like before, you can invoke methods and access non-method properties:
> p.toString()
'(3, 1)'
> p.x
3
Methods shouldn’t be in each instance, they should be shared between instances, to save memory. You can use a prototype for that purpose. The object stored in Point.prototype becomes the prototype of the instances of Point. The relationship between an object (the “prototypee”) and its prototype works as follows: The prototypees inherit all of the prototype’s properties. In general, there is a single prototype and several prototypees, so all prototypees share the prototype’s properties. Consequently, Point.prototype is where you put the methods:
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
Point.prototype = {
dist: function () {
return Math.sqrt((this.x*this.x)+(this.y*this.y));
},
toString: function () {
return "("+this.x+", "+this.y+")";
}
}
We assign an object to Point.prototype, via an object initializer with two properties dist and toString. Now there is a clear separation of responsibility: The constructor is responsible for setting up instance-specific data, the prototype contains shared data (i.e., the methods). Note that prototypes are highly optimized in JavaScript engines, so there is usually no performance penalty for putting methods there. Methods are called just like before, you don’t notice whether they are stored in the instance or in the prototype. One problem remains: For every function f the following equation should hold [1]:
f.prototype.constructor === f
Every function is set up like that by default. But we have replaced the default value of Point.prototype. To satisfy the equation, we can either add a property constructor to the object literal above or we can keep the default value, by not replacing it, by adding the methods to it:
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
Point.prototype.dist = function () {
return Math.sqrt((this.x*this.x)+(this.y*this.y));
};
Point.prototype.toString = function () {
return "("+this.x+", "+this.y+")";
};
The constructor property is not that important; it mainly allows you to detect what constructor created a given instance:
> var p = new Point(2, 2)
> p.constructor
[Function: Point]
> p.constructor.name
'Point'
Extending
In JavaScript, the term extending an object means destructively adding new properties to it: To extend an object A with an object B, we (shallowly) copy B’s properties to A. JavaScript’s slightly uncommon definition of that term is due to the Prototype framework, which has a method Object.extend(). The following is a naive implementation:
function extend(target, source) {
// Don’t do this:
for (var propName in source) {
target[propName] = source[propName];
}
return target;
}
The problem with this code is that for-in iterates over all properties of an object, including those inherited from a prototype. This can be seen here:
> extend({}, new Point())
{ x: undefined,
y: undefined,
dist: [Function],
toString: [Function] }
We do want the “own” (direct) properties x and y of the Point instance. But we don’t want its inherited properties dist and toString. Why are the inherited properties copied to the first argument? Because for-in sees all properties of an object, including inherited ones. Point inherits several properties from Object, for example valueOf:
> var p = new Point(7, 1);
> p.valueOf
[Function: valueOf]
These properties are not copied over, because for-in can only see enumerable properties [2] and they are not enumerable:
> p.propertyIsEnumerable("valueOf")
false
> p.propertyIsEnumerable("dist")
true
To fix extend(), we must ensure that only own properties of source are considered.
function extend(target, source) {
for (var propName in source) {
// Is propName an own property of source?
if (source.hasOwnProperty(propName)) {
target[propName] = source[propName];
}
}
return target;
}
There is one more problem: The above code fails if source has an own property whose name is “hasOwnProperty” [3]:
> extend({}, { hasOwnProperty: 123 })
TypeError: Property 'hasOwnProperty' is not a function
The failure is due to source.hasOwnProperty (line 4) accessing the own property (a number) instead of the inherited method. We can solve this problem by referring to that method directly and not via source:
function extend(target, source) {
var hasOwnProperty = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
for (var propName in source) {
// Invoke hasOwnProperty() with this = source
if (hasOwnProperty.call(source, propName)) {
target[propName] = source[propName];
}
}
return target;
}
On ECMAScript 5 engines (or older engines where a shim [4] has been loaded), the following version of extend() is better, because it preserves property attributes such as enumerability:
function extend(target, source) {
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(source)
.forEach(function(propName) {
Object.defineProperty(target, propName,
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(source, propName));
});
return target;
}
Setting the prototype of an object
So far, we have seen how to add properties to an object in a destructive manner. We have also seen that prototypes do the same thing, but non-destructively: Its properties “show up” in an instance, but are not among its own properties. It would be nice if we could influence this kind of inheritance more directly and set the prototype of an object without a constructor. Given that an object’s prototype is such a fundamental, heavily optimized feature, the only standard way of doing so is by creating a new object. That is, you can only set an object’s prototype once, when you create it. The following code uses ECMAScript 5’s Object.create() to create a new object whose prototype is the object proto.
var proto = { bla: true };
var obj = Object.create(proto);
obj.foo = 123;
obj.bar = "abc";
obj has both inherited and own properties:
> obj.bla
true
> obj.foo
123
The ECMAScript 5 shim uses code similar to the following to make Object.create available on older browsers.
if (Object.create === undefined) {
Object.create = function (proto) {
function Tmp() {}
Tmp.prototype = proto;
// New empty object whose prototype is proto
return new Tmp();
};
}
The above code uses a temporary constructor to create a single instance that has the given prototype. So far, we have ignored the optional second parameter of Object.create() that allows you to define properties on the newly created object:
var obj = Object.create(proto, {
foo: { value: 123 },
bar: { value: "abc" }
});
The properties are defined via property descriptors. With a descriptor, you can specify property attributes such as enumerability, not just values. As an exercise, let us implement protoChain(), a simplified version of Object.create(). It avoids the complexities of property descriptors and simply extends the new object with the second parameter. For example:
var obj = protoChain(proto, {
foo: 123,
bar: "abc"
});
We can generalize the above idea to an arbitrary amount of parameters:
protoChain(obj_0, obj_1, ..., obj_n-1, obj_n)
Remember that we have to create fresh objects in order to assign prototypes. Hence, protoChain() returns a shallow copy of obj_n whose prototype is a shallow copy of obj_n-1, etc. obj_0 is the only object in the returned chain that has not been duplicated. protoChain() can be implemented like this:
function protoChain() {
if (arguments.length === 0) return null;
var prev = arguments[0];
for(var i=1; i < arguments.length; i++) {
// Create duplicate of arguments[i] with prototype prev
prev = Object.create(prev);
extend(prev, arguments[i]);
}
return prev;
}
Subtyping
The idea of subtyping is to create a new constructor that is based on an existing one. The new constructor is called the sub-constructor, the existing one the super-constructor. The following is a sub-constructor of Point:
function ColorPoint(x, y, color) {
Point.call(this, x, y);
this.color = color;
}
The above code sets up the instance properties x, y and color. It does so by passing this (an instance of ColorPoint) to Point: Point is called as a function, but the call() method allows us to keep the this of ColorPoint. Therefore, Point() adds x and y for us and we add color ourselves.
We still need to take care of methods: On one hand, we want to inherit Point’s methods, on the other hand, we want to define our own methods. This is a simple way of doing so via extend():
// function ColorPoint: see above
extend(ColorPoint.prototype, Point.prototype);
ColorPoint.prototype.toString = function () {
return this.color+" "+Point.prototype.toString.call(this);
};
We first copy the methods in Point.prototype to ColorPoint.prototype and then add our own method: We replace Point’s toString() with a version whose result combines the color with the output of Point.prototype.toString(). We directly refer to the latter method and call it with ColorPoint’s this. For more information on invoking methods of a super-prototype consult [5]. ColorPoint works as expected:
> var cp = new ColorPoint(5, 3, "red");
> cp.toString()
'red (5, 3)'
As an improvement, we can avoid adding redundant properties to ColorPoint.prototype, by making Point.prototype its prototype.
// function ColorPoint: see above
ColorPoint.prototype = Object.create(Point.prototype);
ColorPoint.prototype.constructor = ColorPoint;
ColorPoint.prototype.toString = function () {
return this.color+" "+Point.prototype.toString.call(this);
};
In line 1, we have replaced the default value of ColorPoint.prototype and thus need to set the constructor property in line 2. While writing a single constructor is fairly straightforward, the above code is too complicated to be performed by hand. A helper function inherits() would make it simpler:
// function ColorPoint: see above
ColorPoint.prototype.toString = function () {
return this.color+" "+Point.prototype.toString.call(this);
};
inherits(ColorPoint, Point);
The function inherits() is modeled after Node.js’s util.inherits(). It gives you subtyping while keeping the simplicity of normal constructors. Requirements:
- It shouldn’t matter whether we call inherits() before or after we are adding methods to the prototype.
- inherits() should ensure that the constructor property is set correctly.
function inherits(SubC, SuperC) {
var subProto = Object.create(SuperC.prototype);
// At the very least, we keep the "constructor" property
// At most, we keep additions that have already been made
extend(subProto, SubC.prototype);
SubC.prototype = subProto;
};
Referring to super-properties
There is one more thing that we can improve: ColorPoint.prototype.toString() makes the following call.
Point.prototype.toString.call(this)
That is not ideal, because we have hard-coded the super-constructor. Instead, we’d rather use:
ColorPoint._super.toString.call(this)
To make the above code possible, inherits() only has to make the following assignment:
SubC._super = SuperC.prototype;
Here we diverge from Node.js, where SubC.super_ refers to SuperC. The ColorPoint constructor still contains a hard-coded reference to Point. It can be eliminated by replacing Point.call(...) with
ColorPoint._super.constructor.call(this, x, y);
Not exactly pretty, but it gets the job done. Our final version of ColorPoint looks like this:
function ColorPoint(x, y, color) {
ColorPoint._super.constructor.call(this, x, y);
this.color = color;
}
ColorPoint.prototype.toString = function () {
return this.color+" "+ColorPoint._super.toString.call(this);
};
inherits(ColorPoint, Point);
Conclusion, what to read next
You can download the source code of this post as project inheritance-by-example on GitHub.Via our running example, we have seen how to go from objects to constructors, how to extend objects, how to set an object’s prototype and how to create sub-constructors. You can read the following blog posts to deepen your understanding of JavaScript inheritance:
- A more thorough explanation of how JavaScript inheritance works: “Prototypes as classes – an introduction to JavaScript inheritance”
- Patterns for creating objects: “Exemplar patterns in JavaScript”
- How to keep object data private: “Private data for objects in JavaScript”
16 comments:
The `_super` property should definitely be part of the standard. Too much mess around with different naming & implementation of it.
Thanks for the article.
I use something like that for super:ColorPoint.prototype.toString = function () {
return this.color+" "+this._ColorPoint_super.toString.call(this);
};
Don't know if it's better or not.I think my goal was to make it relative to "this".Maybe errors are more obvious after a wrong copy-paste,because the unexpected member won't exist in "this".
The naming convention keeps you out of trouble. If you didn’t add one super per constructor, you’d have a risk of infinite loops. The check whether the right super is used is an interesting benefit. Despite that, I prefer the solution shown in the post, because it’s a little simpler.
https://gist.github.com/1613617
Another way to do this but without the constructors.
Excellent explanation, glad I found this site. I am trying to learn to *program* with js instead of just using it.
Thank you.
Thanks for the article. I might have made a mistake, but it appears like the inherits method does not properly set the ColorPoint constructor.
The following:
ColorPoint.prototype = Object.create(Point.prototype);ColorPoint.prototype.constructor = ColorPoint;
var c = new ColorPoint(3, 2, 'blue');
console.log(c.constructor);
// Displays this in Chrome
function ColorPoint(x, y, color) { Point.call(this, x, y); this.color = color;}
Once I use the inherits method() I see this instead:
function Point(x, y) { this.x = x; this.y = y;}
The article states:
"inherits() should ensure that the constructor property is set correctly."
Am I doing something wrong?
If I add the following line to the inherits function than I see the ColorPoint constructor:
SubC.prototype.constructor = SubC;
That should not be necessary, inherits() should take care of that via extend(). But that only works if you don’t assign to ColorPoint.prototype. That is, you should not do the following:
ColorPoint.prototype = Object.create(Point.prototype);
See answer above.
Could you perhaps take a look at this and see what I'm doing wrong?
http://jsfiddle.net/DjVsJ/
I'm using console.log so you will have to open Firebug/Chrome console to see output.
If I uncomment the line which sets the constructor in inherits it works fine.
Thanks!
Found it. It was the extend method. I was not using the newer ECMAScript 5 version (due to those IE browsers..). So I imagine it's perfectly fine if I manually set the constructor?
Found it. It was the extend method. I was not using the ECMAScript 5 version (due to those IE browsers..). I imagine it's fine if I manually set the constructor?
It would be better to fix extend, instead. You can use Underscore’s version:
http://www.2ality.com/2012/08/underscore-extend.html
_.extend = function(obj) {
each(slice.call(arguments, 1), function(source) {
for (var prop in source) {
obj[prop] = source[prop];
}
});
return obj;
};
Problem: The above ignores non-enumerable properties (such as constructor). Hence, you indeed have to manually set the constructor property.
Thanks Axel. I'm new to JS. Your article was the best I found on inheritance thus far. It's a little crazy this isn't built into the language.
I agree. It is also something that could have been standardized by the community. But with ECMAScript.next, it won’t be a problem, any more, because it will have classes (which aren’t real classes, but syntactic sugar for constructors):
http://www.2ality.com/2012/07/esnext-classes.html
Post a Comment