Comments on: Using literals http://www.jspatterns.com/using-literals/ Exploring common JavaScript patterns and anti-patterns Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:54:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: M S http://www.jspatterns.com/using-literals/#comment-5905 M S Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:37:48 +0000 http://www.jspatterns.com/?p=48#comment-5905 I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I always considered it a matter of situation and preference. Defining your object as a function instead of a literal and using new is better suited for a proper class that will be creating many instances of. However if you're creating an object once and are unlikely to create it again, you might just define it inline in the scope where it's needed. I'm guessing that calling a function that returned an object literal is practically equivalent to calling new on the same function. I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but I always considered it a matter of situation and preference. Defining your object as a function instead of a literal and using new is better suited for a proper class that will be creating many instances of.

However if you’re creating an object once and are unlikely to create it again, you might just define it inline in the scope where it’s needed.

I’m guessing that calling a function that returned an object literal is practically equivalent to calling new on the same function.

]]> By: Karl Oakes http://www.jspatterns.com/using-literals/#comment-2961 Karl Oakes Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:45:38 +0000 http://www.jspatterns.com/?p=48#comment-2961 Why is it better to use literals ? I can see it is more natural to use literals in an object based language, but don't understand why it is preferred, is the new operator more expensive in terms of instantiation? Surely they are doing the same thing ? Why is it better to use literals ? I can see it is more natural to use literals in an object based language, but don’t understand why it is preferred, is the new operator more expensive in terms of instantiation? Surely they are doing the same thing ?

]]> By: JSPatterns.com » Blog Archive » A case against inheritance http://www.jspatterns.com/using-literals/#comment-1343 JSPatterns.com » Blog Archive » A case against inheritance Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:58:12 +0000 http://www.jspatterns.com/?p=48#comment-1343 [...] easy to follow this advice in JavaScript. Remember – no classes in JavaScript. And how about the object literal, how simple it is? If you can add functionality to your objects from elsewhere – why do you need [...]

]]> By: JSPatterns.com » Blog Archive » Constructors http://www.jspatterns.com/using-literals/#comment-1339 JSPatterns.com » Blog Archive » Constructors Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:16:33 +0000 http://www.jspatterns.com/?p=48#comment-1339 [...] simple way to create objects in JavaScript is using object literal notation. An other way, a bit more involved is to use a constructor [...] [...] simple way to create objects in JavaScript is using object literal notation. An other way, a bit more involved is to use a constructor [...]

]]>