coding style - Why is using side effects bad practice in JavaScript constructors? - Stack Overflow

admin管理员组

文章数量:1305234

I use something quite similar to the design pattern custom objects in my code normally.

But JSLint frowns upon constructs like this:

function MyClass() { this.init(); }
new MyClass(data);

Because the object is being discarded immediately after creation - it isn't being used for anything. We can fool JSLint to ignore this by assigning it to a variable, but it doesn't change that JSLint (and I am guessing many JavaScript enthusiasts) discourages the pattern.

So why is using side effects in a JavaScript constructor seen as a bad practice?

For what it's worth, I thought this was a good practice because:

1. You have one setup function, thus it should be easier to maintain if e.g. you are managing a list of MyClass instances for access later. (Pushing an object onto an array is a side effect, you would have to do it after the constructor returned to be "good practice" = harder to maintain.)
2. It has its own prototype, thus a "class ownership": Firebug reports this as an instance of MyClass instead of just Object. (This, in my opinion, makes it superior to the other design patterns.)

I use something quite similar to the design pattern custom objects in my code normally.

But JSLint frowns upon constructs like this:

function MyClass() { this.init(); }
new MyClass(data);

Because the object is being discarded immediately after creation - it isn't being used for anything. We can fool JSLint to ignore this by assigning it to a variable, but it doesn't change that JSLint (and I am guessing many JavaScript enthusiasts) discourages the pattern.

So why is using side effects in a JavaScript constructor seen as a bad practice?

For what it's worth, I thought this was a good practice because:

1. You have one setup function, thus it should be easier to maintain if e.g. you are managing a list of MyClass instances for access later. (Pushing an object onto an array is a side effect, you would have to do it after the constructor returned to be "good practice" = harder to maintain.)
2. It has its own prototype, thus a "class ownership": Firebug reports this as an instance of MyClass instead of just Object. (This, in my opinion, makes it superior to the other design patterns.)

• javascript
• coding-style
• constructor

Share Improve this question Follow edited Feb 4, 2013 at 21:23 Aaron Kurtzhals 2,03633 gold badges1717 silver badges2222 bronze badges asked Feb 4, 2013 at 20:24 user1994380user1994380 17366 bronze badges 5

• JSLint discourages new MyClass because you're not using it after you've instantiated it. thus, it's only being used for its side-effects. Instead, this example could be rewritten to make use of dependency injection as initialize(new MyClass()); (although this example is so simple as to be silly). – zzzzBov Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 20:33
• Are you really never assigning newly created instances of MyClass to anything (in other words, is this a convoluted way to make init() a kind of static method)? "Normal" use of this pattern would not trigger JSLint warnings. – Frédéric Hamidi Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 20:34
• @FrédéricHamidi not never, but sometimes it will have side effects which do the job itself, i.e. there's nothing more that needs to be done. A Person constructor might instantiate a person object, but you may not necessarily need to operate on that person right now. In the case you do need to, the side effects would register itself in an array for access later. – user1994380 Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 20:50
• @zzzzBov JSLint's warning is rather misleading if side effects are not discouraged but using them for side effects exclusively is. The warning reads "Do not use 'new' for side effects." I may be mistaking but to me this implies that it must be used exclusively to set properties (or for the inheritance thereof). – user1994380 Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 20:56
• A constructor can be used to perform functionality, it's just expected that you'll do more than simply instantiate a constructor. If all you're doing is instantiating an object and discarding it, you're better off using a normal function call. – zzzzBov Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 22:05

Add a ment  | 

1 Answer 1

Sorted by: Reset to default 11

In his book Clean Code, Robert Martin says

Side effects are lies. Your function promises to do one thing, but it also does other hidden things...they are devious and damaging mistruths that often result in strange temporal couplings and order dependencies.

What you described in your ment regarding arrays sounds like a "strange temporal coupling".

本文标签： coding styleWhy is using side effects bad practice in JavaScript constructorsStack Overflow