If I have the following code:
var obj = {
x: 34,
init: function() {
alert(this.x);
alert(obj.x)
}
};
Both al
this
inside the function is not necessarily the same as obj
. It depends on how the function is called.
obj.init()
, obj
will be the same as this
.setTimeout(obj.init, 500)
, this
will be the global object (window
in browsers, unless you're using strict mode) Good MDN reference on all of this
I would say there are two differences here:
this
can get shadowed. Creating an anonymous function in JavaScript can unfortunately replace this
with a reference to the new anonymous function you're in, and not the current object you want access to.this
is more flexible if the name of the object changes.this
is probably faster in this case because JavaScript won't need to look up the reference.
Besides the shadowing and so on mentioned in the previous answers, using this
is more generic and thus will work more effectively in certain scenarios. Let me illustrate.
var object = {
name: 'John Doe',
print: function () {
console.log(object.name);
}
};
var anotherObject = Object.create(object);
object.print(); // John Doe
anotherObject.print(); // John Doe
anotherObject.name = 'Jane Doe';
console.log(anotherObject.name); // Jane Doe
anotherObject.print(); // John Doe
What I'm doing here is that I'm creating an object
that has a name 'John Doe' and then I create anotherObject
that inherits from it. Now in this scenario, you would expect anotherObject.print()
to print its own name. But it doesn't.
This is because your function is tied to that particular object. If I would have used this
instead, it would have referred to the new object appropriately.
Also, imagine what happens if I were to do this.
delete object.name;
anotherObject.print() // Error!
http://jsfiddle.net/uxy08zxz/
This is because even though you think it has nothing to do with that previous object, its function still refers to that very property. Doesn't it?
Hence, keep it generic. Use this
. Keeps your code drier, I say.