Question

This is how I do it now. It feels like a hazzle…

var broken_posts = new Object();
broken_posts.empty = new Array();
broken_posts.one = new Array();

Answer 1

The answers by Andru and Thilo are both correct, but perhaps some information on why is in order:

• Avoid direct calls to the Array constructor: it’s confusing and misleading. var a = new Array(5); returns [undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined], whereas var b = new Array('5'); returns ['5']. Or even var c = new Array(5,5); => [5,5].

• Same applies for the direct object constructor. There’s really no reason to create an object calling the basic object constructor. The only times you should use the keyword new is when creating a date object, or calling a self-made constructor function (and even in that case, there’s no real need for the new keyword, there are alternative design patterns). Using the object literal {} is more common, allows for direct assignment of properties (and even methods). Besides, It’s so much easier to create your objects in a JIT sort of way. Not only does it require less lines of code, with correct use of closures, or just for the one call, an object can get GC’ed once you’re finished with it.

---

function iWantAnObject(obj)
{
    if (obj instanceof Object)
    {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}//function returns, obj is GC'ed
iWantAnObject({just:'some',rand:'Object',withA:function(){console.log('a method';}});

As opposed to this scenario:

var tempObj = new Object();
tempObj.just = 'some';//etc...
//etc...
iWantAnObjct(tempObj);
//tempObj isn't yet GC'ed

In the last example chances are: you accidentally create global variables, have various objects in memory that are no longer required, and, last but not least: isn’t very in tune with the prototypal nature of JS.