Why the different way to declare a class?

[Ray]

Hello,

While reading another guy's I found myself a bit confused by his way of
declaring his class--I usually declare a class like this:

function Foo() {
this.blah = true;
this.bleh = false;
}

Foo.prototype.blabla = function() {
};

and so on. However in his code he does a lot of this:

var Foo = {
blah : true,
bleh : false,
blabla : function() {
}
};

My question is, how are they different? I mean I guess he's declaring
his class JSON style. But can he even do a new() on his class? Seems
like then he's limited to using his methods and variables statically,
e.g.: Foo.blah, Foo.bleh, Foo.blabla() and so on.

Is there any particular reason why one would do that?

Thank you!
Ray

[Paul]

Different things for different uses.
Ray wrote:

Hello,

While reading another guy's I found myself a bit confused by his way of
declaring his class--I usually declare a class like this:

function Foo() {
this.blah = true;
this.bleh = false;
}

Foo.prototype.blabla = function() {
};

With this technique you can make lots of foo (really instances of Foo).
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
You could also create a Foo sorting function:
function fooSort(foo1,foo2){
var comp = 0;
if(foo1.blah && !foo2.blah){
comp = (-1);
} else if(!foo1.blah && foo2.blah){
comp = (1);
}
return comp;
}
and sort an array of foo:
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
b.blah = false;
var c = new Foo();
var fooArray = new Array(a,b,c);
fooArray.sort(fooSort);

Some might avoid prototype using a form like:
function Foo() {
this.blah = true;
this.bleh = false;
this.blabla = function() {
};
arguments.callee.fooSorter = function fooSort(foo1,foo2){
var comp = 0;
if(foo1.blah && !foo2.blah){
comp = (-1);
} else if(!foo1.blah && foo2.blah){
comp = (1);
}
return comp;
}
}
// test
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
b.blah = false;
var c = new Foo();
fooArray.sort(Foo.fooSorter);
var res = "";
for(var i=0;i<fooArray.length;i++){
res += fooArray[i].blah + "\n";
}
alert(res);

>
and so on. However in his code he does a lot of this:

var Foo = {
blah : true,
bleh : false,
blabla : function() {
}
};

This form is used to create a single object. It is also useful for many
things.
If you only need one, then this is more concise.

>
My question is, how are they different? I mean I guess he's declaring
his class JSON style. But can he even do a new() on his class? Seems
like then he's limited to using his methods and variables statically,
e.g.: Foo.blah, Foo.bleh, Foo.blabla() and so on.

Is there any particular reason why one would do that?

Let the flame wars commence... ;-)

>
Thank you!
Ray

[John G Harris]

In article <11**********************@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, Ray
<ra********@yahoo.comwrites

>Hello,

While reading another guy's I found myself a bit confused by his way of
declaring his class--I usually declare a class like this:

function Foo() {
this.blah = true;
this.bleh = false;
}

Foo.prototype.blabla = function() {
};

and so on. However in his code he does a lot of this:

var Foo = {
blah : true,
bleh : false,
blabla : function() {
}
};

<snip>

If you want only one of that kind of object then the second way is less
typing. If you want several then the first way is less confusing and
often more convenient.

Incidentally, if you are using 'class' to mean a class of objects with
something interesting in common then ok.

If you mean objects with a rigid class definition that can't be altered
after construction, as in Java, then very not ok.

Either way, 'class' is a dangerous word to use in Javascript.

John
--
John Harris

[Ray]

John G Harris wrote:

If you want only one of that kind of object then the second way is less
typing. If you want several then the first way is less confusing and
often more convenient.

Incidentally, if you are using 'class' to mean a class of objects with
something interesting in common then ok.

Um, yeah, class as in a class of objects, not like in Java :)

Thanks John!
Ray

>
If you mean objects with a rigid class definition that can't be altered
after construction, as in Java, then very not ok.

Either way, 'class' is a dangerous word to use in Javascript.

John
--
John Harris

[Ray]

Paul wrote:
<snip>

Hey, thanks Paul! I learned a new trick :)

Cheers
Ray

>

Thank you!
Ray