I was reading about the new JavaScript-like language from Microsoft called TypeScript. In the playground (example section), there is a simple class in TypeScript syntax converted to JavaScript code. Coming from a Java programming background, it was interesting for me to learn how OOP is done in JavaScript as compiled from TypeScript.
The TypeScript code:
class Greeter {
greeting: string;
constructor (message: string) {
this.greeting = message;
}
greet() {
return "Hello, " + this.greeting;
}
}
var greeter = new Greeter("world");
var button = document.createElement('button')
button.innerText = "Say Hello"
button.onclick = function() {
alert(greeter.greet())
}
document.body.appendChild(button)
And the equivalent JavaScript code:
var Greeter = (function () {
function Greeter(message) {
this.greeting = message;
}
Greeter.prototype.greet = function () {
return "Hello, " + this.greeting;
};
return Greeter;
})();
var greeter = new Greeter("world");
var button = document.createElement('button');
button.innerText = "Say Hello";
button.onclick = function () {
alert(greeter.greet());
};
document.body.appendChild(button);
The Typescript part is very similar to Java so I understand that. Now my question is why in JavaScript the body of the Greeter class is embedded in a an anonymous function() call?
Why not write it like this?
function Greeter(message) {
this.greeting = message;
}
Greeter.prototype.greet = function () {
return "Hello, " + this.greeting;
};
What is the advantage/disadvantage of each method?
The following is called an Immediately Invoked Function Expression:
It is used to keep the global scope clean. Though, in this case it isn’t necessary since the return value is assigned to a variable
Greeter. The only time this pattern is useful is when you want “private” static members.E.g.: