I am not asking if this is okay:
Object.prototype.method = function(){};
This is deemed evil by pretty much everyone, considering it messes up for(var i in obj)
.
Ignoring
Object.defineProperty
)Assuming you have some incredibly useful method, is this considered wrong/unethical?
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'methodOnSteriods',{ value: function(){ /* Makes breakfast, solves world peace, takes out trash */ }, writable: true, configurable: true, enumerable: false });
If you believe the above is unethical, why would they even implement the feature in the first place?
The extends keyword can be used to extend the objects as well as classes in JavaScript. It is usually used to create a class which is child of another class. Syntax: class childclass extends parentclass {...}
The short answer is Yes, you should do it.
Extending the JavaScript built-in object is not a good idea because if browser/JS has decided that they will provide the same method that you have extended, then your method will be override and the JS implementation (which may be difference from yours) would take over.
prototype is a property of a Function object. It is the prototype of objects constructed by that function. __proto__ is an internal property of an object, pointing to its prototype.
Despite this being the accepted answer, 10 years of experience has taught me this isn't the best idea. Pretty much anything you can do avoid polluting the global scope is a very very good thing.
Original answer below, for posterity, and because stack overflow will not let me delete an accepted answer.
I think it's fine if it works in your target environment.
Also I think prototype extension paranoia is overblown. As long as you use hasOwnProperty()
like a good developer that it's all fine. Worst case, you overload that property elsewhere and lose the method. But that's your own fault if you do that.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With