I see a lot of code like:
var myApp ={};
(function() {
console.log(\"Hello\");
this.var1 = \"mark\"; //\"this\" is global, because it runs immedi
One reason: wrapping your code in an anonymous function allows you to create a module which distinguishes a public API from private functions and variables that are only used internally to the module. This avoids polluting the global namespace.
var myApp ={};
(function() {
console.log("Hello");
this.var1 = "mark";
function helper() {/*Some code here*/;}
myApp.sayGoodbye = function() {
helper()
console.log("Goodbye");
};
})();
I could say:
var myApp ={};
console.log("Hello");
var var1 = "mark";
function helper() {/*Some code here*/;}
myApp.sayGoodbye = function() {
helper()
console.log("Goodbye");
};
But then the global scope includes a function called helper
which is of no use to anyone using your module, and could lead to possible naming conflicts with other modules.
I could alternatively just include helper
as a method of myApp.
var myApp ={};
console.log("Hello");
var var1 = "mark";
myApp.helper = function() {/*Some code here*/;}
myApp.sayGoodbye = function() {
this.helper()
console.log("Goodbye");
};
However, I may wish to prevent users from directly calling helper
, in which case this won't do.
Usually, you would have this :
var myApp ={};
(function() {
console.log("Hello");
var var1 = "mark";
myApp.sayGoodbye = function() {
console.log("Goodbye");
};
})();
The main difference is that var1
doesn't clutter the global namespace. After this call, var1
is still the same than before (generally undefined).
As var1
can only be accessed from the function defineds in the closure, it is said "private".
Apart avoiding possible causes of conflicts, it's just cleaner not to keep global variables when useless.
Here, you don't have a local variable but a global one defined as this.var1
. It's probably a bug, or the reason would be found elsewhere in the code.