Since when we declare a function we get its prototype’s constructor property point to the function itself, is it a bad practice to overwrite function’s prototype like so:
function LolCat() {
}
// at this point LolCat.prototype.constructor === LolCat
LolCat.prototype = {
hello: function () {
alert('meow!');
}
// other method declarations go here as well
};
// But now LolCat.prototype.constructor no longer points to LolCat function itself
var cat = new LolCat();
cat.hello(); // alerts 'meow!', as expected
cat instanceof LolCat // returns true, as expected
This is not how I do it, I still prefer the following approach
LolCat.prototype.hello = function () { ... }
but I often see other people doing this.
So are there any implications or drawbacks by removing the constructor reference from the prototype by overwriting the function’s prototype object for the sake of convenience as in the first example?
I can’t see anyone mentioning best practice as far as this is concerned, so I think it comes down to whether you can see the
constructorproperty ever being useful.One thing worth noting is that the
constructorproperty, if you don’t destroy it, will be available on the created object too. It seems to me like that could be useful:So it seems to me that it’s an architectural decision. Do you want to allow a created object to re-call its constructor after it’s instantiated? If so preserve it. If not, destroy it.
Note that the constructor of objectTwo is now exactly equal to the standard Object constructor function – useless.
So calling
new objectTwo.constructor()is equivalent tonew Object().