Puzzling question about JS prototypes

[John G Harris]

The perfect pattern to build an inheritance chain: d inherits from c
that inherits from b that inherits from a:

d= object(c= object(b= object(a= {})));

Try to write that in a single line using 'new'...

Now try to create another object of the same kind.

Which is easier :
d1= object(c1= object(b1= object(a1= {})));
or
new Thing();
and which causes less pollution of the global namespace?

You also missed out the
a.init(...); b.init(...); c.init(...); d.init(...);

John

 

[Jorge]

Now try to create another object of the same kind.

Easy:
d2= object(c);
c2= object(b);
etc.

 

[Jorge]

(...)
You also missed out the
  a.init(...); b.init(...); c.init(...); d.init(...);

Is it that using 'new' there's no need to init them or what ?

 

[Jorge]

(...)
Which is easier :
  d1= object(c1= object(b1= object(a1= {})));
or
  new Thing();
and which causes less pollution of the global namespace?
(...)

You probably mean new ThingA() plus new ThingB() plus new ThingC()
plus new ThingD(). 4 different constructor functions. And still the
constructors' prototypes have to be setup *outside* of the constructor
functions. Now that's 'pollution'.

 

[John G Harris]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 at 08:46:01, in comp.lang.javascript, kangax wrote:

[[Construct]] also happens to invoke the function object in question
(see step 6) and it is this invocation that might not be desirable and
which was the main reason behind preferring "beget"/"clone"-like object
creation.

So why not use a different function object, such as the one hidden
inside beget.

John

 

[John G Harris]

Is it that using 'new' there's no need to init them or what ?

Yes.

John

 

[Jorge]

Yes.

No.