Question

In Douglas Crockford’s JavaScript: The Good Parts he recommends that we use functional inheritance. Here’s an example:

var mammal = function(spec, my) {
    var that = {};
    my = my || {};

    // Protected
    my.clearThroat = function() { 
        return "Ahem";
    };

    that.getName = function() {
        return spec.name;
    };

    that.says = function() {
        return my.clearThroat() + ' ' + spec.saying || '';
    };

    return that;
};

var cat = function(spec, my) {
    var that = {};
    my = my || {};

    spec.saying = spec.saying || 'meow';
    that = mammal(spec, my);

    that.purr = function() { 
        return my.clearThroat() + " purr"; 
    };

    that.getName = function() { 
        return that.says() + ' ' + spec.name + ' ' + that.says();
    };

    return that;
};

var kitty = cat({name: "Fluffy"});

The main issue I have with this is that every time I make a mammal or cat the JavaScript interpreter has to re-compile all the functions in it. That is, you don’t get to share the code between instances.

My question is: how do I make this code more efficient? For example, if I was making thousands of cat objects, what is the best way to modify this pattern to take advantage of the prototype object?

Answer 1

Well, you just can’t do it that way if you plan on making lots of mammal or cat. Instead do it the old fashioned way (prototype) and inherit by property. You can still do the constructors the way you have above but instead of that and my you use the implicit this and some variable representing the base class (in this example, this.mammal).

cat.prototype.purr = function() { return this.mammal.clearThroat() + "purr"; }

I’d use another name than my for base access and store it in this in the cat constructor. In this example I used mammal but this might not be the best if you want to have static access to the global mammal object. Another option is to name the variable base.