Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
“var functionName” vs “function functionName” (stackoverflow.com)
141 points by baptou12 954 days ago | hide | past | web | 78 comments | favorite



An example case where "var" method is useful:

    function make_dot_product(dim) {

      if (dim === 3) {
         var dot = function(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y+a.z*b.z
         }
      } else if (dim === 2) {
         var dot = function(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y
         }
      }
  
      return dot
    }
vs.

    function make_dot_product(dim) {

      if (dim === 3) {
         function dot(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y+a.z*b.z
         }
      } else if (dim === 2) {
         function dot(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y
         }
      }
  
      return dot
    }
The second case is erroneous, as it will always return 2-dimensional dot function (even if you call make_dot_product(20)). The is because function nameSpace() is defined at parse time, so inside the make_dot_product scope, two instance of dot functions are created, with the second overwriting the first. If we use var f = function() {...} this can be avoided.


Not a great counterexample imo:

    function make_dot_product(dim) {

         return (dim === 3) ? dot3 : dot2;

         function dot3(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y+a.z*b.z
         }

         function dot2(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y
         }

    }


I think I prefer this one, although I'd put the return at the bottom for convention's sake. A lot of people don't know - or want or need to know - about the specifics of hoisting and what-have-you, and will consider this counter-intuitive.


Not really a good case for var

    function make_dot_product(dim) {
      if (dim === 3) {
         return function(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y+a.z*b.z
         }
      } else if (dim === 2) {
         return function(a,b) {
            return a.x*b.x+a.y*b.y
         }
      }
      return null;
    }


I don't like using var in that way, because it seems like you're declaring two distinct variables. In your example, I'd much prefer:

   function make_dot_product(dim) {
      var dot;
      if (dim === 3) {
         dot = function(a, b) {
            return a.x * b.x + a.y * b.y + a.z * b.z;
         };
      } else if (dim === 2) {
         dot = function(a, b) {
            return a.x * b.x + a.y * b.y;
         };
      }

      return dot;
   }
This also makes it clearer what happens if neither dim is neither 2 nor 3.


The variables are the same. Var statements get hoisted to the beginning of the function.

That said, it is cleaner to only 'var' each variable once, to suppress this confusion.


Sweet combination of hoisting and scope creation. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...


An additional wrinkle: recursive functions. If you've got a recursive function, you absolutely must use a function declaration to introduce the function identifier. Otherwise you inadvertently create a closure. Consider:

  var a = function(b) {
    if (b === 0) {
      return true;
    }
    return a(--b);
  };
  var b = a;
  a = function() { return false; };
  b(5);
As an alternative, you should go

  var a = function a2(b) {
    if (b === 0) {
      return true;
    }
    return a2(--b);
  };
  var b = a;
  a = function() { return false; };
  var a2 = function() { return false; };
  b(5);
Perhaps counterintuitively, a2 doesn't leak into the containing scope, which makes it safe to use within the function it declares.

Some older browsers fuck this up though, IIRC.


you can use the same name for both the variable and the function in your (alternative) solution. It's better and less confusing. and another reason your alternative is preferred is because arguments.callee is going away (if it isn't gone already) :/


Indeed. Having separate names was for didactic purposes. In real code, naming the variable the same as the function would be very strongly recommended.


i know it's sort of side effect driven, but i like function hoisting.

it's one of my main tools to fight the callback pyramid of doom.

use named functions, place them below the code that uses them.

all flat.


This is what I mean. The code that uses the callbacks go first, the callbacks themselves are all named and access to closures withstanding, not nested.

      // this is all the code that is used,
      var _changes = follow(couchOpts);
      _changes.on('change', onChange);
      _changes.on('error', onError);
      _changes.resume();
  
      // from here is just named functions
      function onChange(data) {
        _changes.pause();
        save(data.seqId, saveFn);
      }
      
      function saveFn(err, entity) {
        if (err) { return console.log(err); }
        _changes.resume();
      }
      
      function onError(err) {
        console.log(err);
      }


Why not do the reverse, and declare the inner functions before?


coffeescript forces you to do that, and I do use it that way sometimes in CS.

I don't do it as much as i would with plain js, because the function definition feels less awkward, but I do still prefer named functions over anonymous ones. even if the name only exists in the local scope.


You are just asking for race condition issues with that type of "solution."


Are you referring to a case like this?

    {
      f();
      var a = 3;
      function f() {
        console.log(a);
      }
    }
That will print "undefined" because the entire function f() is hoisted and callable in the first line, but the variable a has not yet been assigned the value. That's not a race condition (those are related to timing in concurrent systems) but is certainly the sort of counter-intuitive visibility that makes me prefer to use function expressions most of the time.


You can still pass in callbacks to them. So if I got the parent's intent right, you've got:

  function bunchOfAsyncThings(callback) {
    var function1, function2;
  
    function1 = function (callback) {
      // do stuff here, then do callback
      function2(callback);
    };
    
    function 2 = function (callback) {
      // done with everything
      callback();
    };
   
    function1(callback);
  }
(Edit: formatting)


how, exactly, is that going to cause race conditions?


I honestly don't understand people who regularly use variables to declare functions (with the exceptions of the extremely rare cases it might be useful).

My POV is you simply shouldn't be putting a function in a variable, it's supposed to be reusable code and you've just made it's position a completely pointless dependency as well as obfuscated the code's meaning.

A named function is clearly supposedly immutable, reusable code (save monkey patching). A function in a variable looks like you might change it.

I want to stress, there are very good reasons to assign a function to a variable. There are also very good reasons to declare a function within the scope of another too. But they are few and far between.

To willy nilly declare functions like they're variables. Bizarre. Perhaps someone who does it can explain what it gains them? The place I first saw it was in Crockford's the Good Parts, but he seems to have stopped doing it when you go look at his code.


It's not using a variable to declare a function, it's using a variable to store a function, maybe only temporarily. The function happens to also be declared on the same line.

Would you also object to

  var functions = { a: function() {}, b: function() {} }
or

  var functions = [ function() {}, function() {} ]
?

in those cases we're creating a storage structure and loading it with functions - a single variable is just another case of the same.

What about

  var log = console.log || function(msg) {  };
?

The function foo() {} declaration syntax in JavaScript is a syntactic hack that uses function hoisting to allow functions to be used 'before' they are declared. All it does is turn into a var foo = function foo() {} at the top of the current scope.

But because of var scope, variables can also be used before they're declared, so often you don't need it anyway:

  var a = function() { return b(); };
  
  var b = function() {};
  
  a(); 
I suspect people who strongly prefer var foo = function() {} over function foo() {} are people who have internalized the idea of functions as data. I'd hesitate to say 'functional programmers', but perhaps 'functional JavaScripters' is valid.

As for "There are also very good reasons to declare a function within the scope of another too. But they are few and far between" - the benefits of closure over parent function scope are incredibly powerful - I don't think they are few and far between at all. I tend to declare pretty much all my functions inside a function using the module pattern:

  (function() {
     var x = 0;
     var f = function() { return x++; };
     window.makeObj = function() { return { id: f() }; } 
  })();


If you're regularly declaring a bunch of anon functions in an array I'd hate to use your code. And your first example is an object declaration, which I have no beef with. The console.log is the rare time I'd probably use it.

In the end, if you think normal function declaration is a "syntactic hack" we're simply not going to agree.

I've used a fair few different languages and to me the distinction between a plain old function and a closure is a useful distinction that helps me read the code quicker.

By declaring it as a variable, you're making it hard to decide which it will be as well.

And deeply coupling code for no good reason. This is the other thing I can't understand. I can't even MOVE your function without worrying about side effects.

On a side note, my original post is going up and down in votes like a yo-yo.


I suspect the vote yo-yoing may be to do with dismissing the possible value of declaring functions inside functions - on a website run by a company called Y Combinator.

I think the difference here is that you see

  function Foo() {
    ...
  }
as a 'normal' function declaration. I see it as a syntax which hides the truth - that that is actually putting

  var Foo = function Foo() {
    ..
  };
at the top of its scope. It's a special syntax for the special case of "I want this function to have this name and be bound to a variable with the same name for the whole of its enclosing scope". But JavaScript permits me to do lots of OTHER things with functions, and pretending it can't doesn't help me write better JavaScript code.

functions are the ONLY way in JavaScript to restrict the scope of a name. How can you talk about the risks of moving things if you aren't even taking advantage of JavaScript's only mechanism to create safely encapsulated name scopes?


When did I say I didn't use the convention for namespaces?

I'm talking about simple code structure.

You need a function.

Do you put it in a var or not.

I have nothing against closures or namespaces or object declaration or many of the million other things you can twist objects in js to do.

What I hate is this:

    var checkValid = function(item) {
        return item!= blah;
    }
When it should be:

    function checkValid(item) {
        //blah
    }
Stop accusing me of a position you've made up in your head.


async.js has 'waterfall' and 'parallel', both of which take an array of functions, and it's (imo) much clearer to declare them as anonymous functions inline than make named functions and then pass an array of names to it. I would say that that makes me someone who regularly declares a bunch of anonymous functions in an array.

If it's a pattern you haven't used, I can certainly understand being wary of it at first. But being wary is different than being prescriptive. There is always more to learn.


Binding a function to a variable does not make it less reusable. Just like binding other values like numeric constants, strings or objects to variables makes them less reusable.

Binding functions to variables however does highlight the fact that functions are first-class values in JavaScript and can be locally scoped, passed to other functions and can be operated on. Functions in Javascript are not the same as functions C or Java and don't need to pretend to be similar.

If you want to prevent a function binding to be changed, use es6's const and don't pretend that function declarations helps you with that.


Have you ever worked in a large Javascript codebase? Anonymous functions allow for namespacing. Declare your namespace as var Namespace = {}, and then attach functions as Namespace.foo = function(){}. Typically in a definition file I will have var self = Namespace; and then declare functions as self.foo = function(){}.


I'm rather fond of that style, or the variant:

    projectname = {
        A_CONSTANT: ...,

        someFunc: function(...) {
        },

        ...

        lastFunc: function(...) {
        }
    }
Basically, JSON layout but with the functions in the resulting namespace.

Debugging & diagnostics for this layout in Firefox and Chrome is not a problem. As for IE, well, some things can't be fixed, I guess.


I do that a bit, but found it tricky to end everything with a comma, and effectively use ":" instead of "=" for declarations. Lately I've been doing

    projectname = (function(){
        self = {};

        self.A_CONSTANT = ...;

        self.someFunc = function(...){
        };

        self.lastFunc = function(...){
        };

        return self;
    })();
I think that produces the exact same end result, but someone set me straight if I'm mistaken.


What you do is a bit more complicated, but has the benefit of making your data "private" within a closure. You are using a function as an object, and assigning other functions as fields within its "prototype". I think these inner functions can call each other w/out a prefix, as methods of the same object.

My version is the "static method" version that requires the namespace and a dot before any function calls. I'm OK with that, unless I need a bunch of instances of something.

P.S. - the semicolons don't really do anything (other than make Doug C feel good), as JS is a line oriented language, and will complete statements when they "look done", semis or not. Think of semicolons in JS like colons in BASIC: they let you put a second statement on the same line.


I think this is the only good reason for doing it the non-traditional way.


Oh, you'd like more?

How about simple closures:

    function getCounter(){
       var num = 0;
       return function(){
          return num++;
       };
    }
How about overriding default functions? This is a snippet from a codebase I'm working on right now:

   require(['helpers/user'], function(User){
      // hack because we are not using layout.master
      User.isLoggedIn = function(){ return global.userInfo.id > 0; };
   });
How about re-using some code in a function? Another snippet from the same code, where self can change based on context:

   var inCart = function(){
      $(self)
       .addClass('disabled')
       .text('In Cart');
   };
   if (Cart.isMixIdInCart(results['mixId'])){
      inCart();
   }else{
      $('.widget .purchase').on('click', function(){
         $('.widget .purchase').text('Adding');
         Cart.addToCart(results['mixId']).done(inCart);
         return false;
      });
   }
These are simply different ways to use closures, but that's part of the benefit of using anonymous functions.


I like to extract out non-semantic parts of a function and wrap the main functionality with these parts. So, if I wanted to create a function that could be called in a fluent style I could write :

    function doSomething() {
       // do stuff
       return this;
    }
However, the `return this` line doesn't really have anything to do with the core of what the method is supposed to do. Its largely an implementation detail.

I feel the method looks much better like :

    var doSomething = fluent(function() {
      // doSomething
    });
The fluent function handles the `return this;` so it doesn't obscure the core method.

It is one of most beautiful aspects of javascript that it enables you to build functions from other functions.


I see two things in lots of JavaScript these days, both of which probably contribute to the perception of JavaScript as a bad language:

1. Anonymous functions assigned to variables. These make debugging a nightmare. Some (possibly all) versions of IE reports something like "error on line 0" when it occurs in such a function, so you really have no idea what went wrong.

2. Accidental closure creation.

Both of these are avoided by just declaring your functions statically. If you want to create an object, you can still assign a static function to a property, e.g.:

  function foo() { ... }
  Foo.prototype.foo = foo;
Back when I used to primarily write JavaScript, and compatibility with things like Netscape and IE3 were a concern, I'd write all my code roughly like that and just namespace the functions if they are for a particular class, e.g.:

  function className_functionName() { ... }
  className.prototype.functionName = className_functionName;
This guarantees maximum compatibility with very old versions of JavaScript/JScript, runtime efficiency (functions get evaluated at parse time not runtime, also guaranteeing only one copy of the function code is ever created) and no possibility of accidentally creating a closure where you don't want to (which can lead to memory leaks).

The downside is that it it makes your JavaScript code look more like C++ code that Java, and even less like Ruby. It also requires a tiny bit more typing, and we all know how much programmers hate typing.


The problems you describe are due to bad runtime environments rather than problems of the language.

Don't write JS in that style when compatibility with ancient browsers is not an issue. Hard to read, maintain and understand.


For me i find that readability is a good reason to declare functions as vars inside a function. It's much easier to follow (pseudo) code that says function handleCustomers = init some variables, var processCustomer = some function definition, forEach customer-->processCustomer(), do some update to some backend when we're done. It's even more pronounced when there are more blocks of code like processCustomer that are easier to read when pulled into their own function. It's especially useful in node when stringing a bunch of callbacks together.


Actually using var makes the function more reusable. For one, having the reference allows you to pass it along to other functions. Further, declaring a function without var is not the same as throwing it into global scope, it can still only be accessed by the local scope *unless you assign it to a global variable of course :)


You can pass any function as an object everywhere you want, i.e. function someName(){} still maps to the identifier someName that is scoped where it was declared and can be passed around to other objects and functions. No need to "var someName = function someName..." to do so.


First class functions blow many peoples' minds.


6 years ago, maybe. Today, no.

This is my other beef with ignorant javascript programmers, so stuck in the past. Most other languages now do this, and, shock, horror, do it better than js which is horribly behind the times.


One big difference is that:

    function functionName()
will show up in a stack trace with a name, whereas the other won't.

You can also do this:

    var f = function functionName() { }


Actually that's not true at least in Firefox and probably chrome.

Take a look at http://jsfiddle.net/2LsSg/.

  window.onload/g@http://fiddle.jshell.net/2LsSg/show/:23:5  
  window.onload/f@http://fiddle.jshell.net/2LsSg/show/:26:5  
  @http://fiddle.jshell.net/2LsSg/show/ line 29 > eval:1:1  
  window.onload@http://fiddle.jshell.net/2LsSg/show/:29:1
(I guess jsfiddle wraps the JS code in a window.onload handler, which makes this a bit more ugly)


It's true in node.js, as of last year, which is where I use the style "var name = function name(){};", because debugging dozens of anonymous functions in node.js' callback playground will ruin your day.


Not true as of 0.10.24, which is what I have installed.


JS engines are getting smarter about this, but you can't really rely on it. I suggest naming your functions if don't want them to be anonymous.


Modern browsers does a very good job at figuring at a name for functions in stack traces, even when you'd expect them not to.


Maybe, but the profilers in Chrome and Firebug do a terrible job, not to mention tools like Visual Event http://www.sprymedia.co.uk/article/visual+event+2

Is it really that much work to name your functions?


Awesome, I guess my info is out of date!



Kangax's article is the best and most detailed piece of writing ever on NFEs, including crazy implementation bugs in IE and other old versions of the browsers.


Using var to declare a variable later assigned to an anonymous function can help with managing larger JavaScript projects where scoping and data member access is important. Here is a pattern I tend to apply rather frequently, included is an example for a custom instance object, which would be created with 'new', and a Namespace object:

    var MyObject;
    (function() {
      var staticPrivateVariable;

      MyObject = function(opts) {
        // Do Initialization Stuff
      };

      MyObject.prototype.publicInstanceFunction = function(opts) {
        // Do instance stuff
      };
    })();

    
    var Namespace;
    (function() {
      var staticPrivateVariable;

      Namespace = function(opts) {
        // Do Initialization Stuff
      };
      Namespace.publicFunction = function(opts) {

      };

      function privateFunction(opts) { 
        // Do some private stuff
      }
    })();


I've been trying to learn to code (I'm a designer) for a while now. I've read books, played around with making things and I'm now taking the JavaScript course on Codecademy. It taught me:

   var functionName = function() {
   // whatever
   }
I had no idea there were other ways to write a function. I still don't understand what the benefits or drawbacks are of each method. Maybe I haven't made it that far yet. But I literally have no idea what most of you are talking about in this thread. I feel like I visited a post written in chinese.

The scope of learning to code seems overwhelming. Finding small bugs in syntax and design is stressful. What I'm supposed to learn (language, style, syntax, frameworks) seems to change faster than I can learn it. I wish I would have started all of this earlier ... like when I was 10.


I am in a similar position to you, in that I only very recently picked up any javascript.

What's worked for me: use whatever meager skills you have to work on a real project that you find interesting. Not something that can hurt people if it goes wrong, but something you care about. Concentrate on the user experience. Eventually, you'll learn better ways to do things as you need to.

I made http://asoftmurmur.com

If you want a laugh, look at the source (the javascript at the bottom of the main index). It's probably the worst JS I've ever seen, but I concentrated on the user experience and I'm pretty happy with how that worked out. I'm now building an Android version and the source is a thousand times more elegant and concise. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure it's still awful, but that's fine, so long as the user experience is good. Next time the code will be better.

Build something real. When you run into a problem you can't solve by yourself, ask for help. This will naturally create a narrow but ever-expanding scope in the face of a limitless quantity of knowledge. I don't know anything about programming, but that's what's worked for me so far.


I'm using asoftmurmur now. I think it is the best noise generator out there. Who cares what the code looks like?


My advice: don't sweat it. Best thing to do would be to code and build things, and then you'll come back to this article in a year and be like, oh, that's obvious. Abstruse technical details don't matter that much, especially when you're starting out.


I'm currently finishing up writing a programming book for absolute beginners and I couldn't agree more with this advice. Don't sweat it! You don't need to learn all of the details of the latest framework. Get comfortable with some small piece of the landscape, stake your claim, and build something you like with it.


Javascript is not the easiest first language to pick up, though obviously it is the one you will get the most bang for your buck from as a designer.

I think what might help you is thinking of programming languages as foreign languages. They have their own vocabulary and grammar. So right away, let that take the pressure off in terms of how quickly you are picking it up. Some people can pick up foreign languages easily. Others can pick up programming languages just as fast. But even if you don't have a natural knack for it, with some persistence practice and time, you will get there.

Also, remember that the person you are talking to in your new language (the computer) is the biggest grammar nazi you have ever met. And they will refuse to acknowledge you unless you use the proper form exactly right. So you can't get away with just memorizing "Could you please tell me where is the bathroom?" because one day you'll accidentally say "Could please tell me bathroom", and your previously helpful foreign friend will completely blow you off. What that means is I think it will be easier if you try to really understand every part of the line you are writing: What is a function. What is "var". WHY do you use var sometimes, and sometimes not, and what is the difference. What is the crazy jQuery syntax all about, with $'s, and parenthesis, and callbacks, etc.

It will take you more time up front, but will lead to fewer frustration in the long run.

Good luck!


Don't worry about it. Programming is easier for an adult to pick up than, say, music or math.

Definitely don't waste your time chasing the latest and greatest. Most frameworks are fads — that's why they go in and out of fashion so quickly. Once you solidly understand the basics, and once you have gained some experience (you probably need a year or so), you'll know enough to evaluate libraries and frameworks efficiently.

Build something using the tools you already know. Don't use too many libraries. Don't copy in code from StackOverflow which you don't understand. Don't listen to know-it-alls who respond to your questions with "why would you ever want to do that?" Just code up a solution to your current problem, and move on. You'll be a good hacker before you know it.

PS: I do suggest you learn to program outside the web domain. The web is unusually beginner-unfriendly because (1) you have to keep dealing with the browser-server stateless request-response fundamental design, and (2) the browser and the DOM are pretty confusing concepts.


There aren't, the name of a function is optional (if you assign it to a variable.) So you can write:

    function a() {}
    // or
    var a = function() {}
    // or
    var a = function a() {}
    // or
    obj.prototype.a = function() {}
    // or
    obj.prototype.a = function a() {}
There is little difference in the function declaration. The difference is if you named it or not.

The reason you have to be careful with the var a = function() {} forms is because variables are hoisted. So while the function will exist, your variable will not point to that function until the assignment happens.


I'm 'ardkore and rigidly enforce `var functionName = function functionName() {}`, under threat of flaying.


What's the goal there? v8, at least, will give the name in a stack trace even if the function is declared like `var a = function(){}`.


Really? I'm using Chrome, and at least for me, unfortunately it doesn't. Second, V8 isn't the only JS engine out there, a lot of tools will simply put the function as 'anonymous function' in stack traces.


> var a = function(){throw Error('err')} undefined > try{a()}catch(err){err.stack} "Error: err at Error (native) at a (<anonymous>:2:26) at <anonymous>:2:5 at Object.InjectedScript._evaluateOn (<anonymous>:641:39) at Object.InjectedScript._evaluateAndWrap (<anonymous>:580:52) at Object.InjectedScript.evaluate (<anonymous>:495:21)"

The "at a" is what we're looking for. I develop largely in Chrome; its been doing this for months, at least.

It also works in IE11 (the only version I have readily available), Firefox, and Safari.


Seriously though, when binding functions to object properties, the seemingly redundant syntax is worth the cleaner call stack: `this.functionName = function functionName() {}`. Simply named functions in promises can also be helpful : `promiseFn().then(function success() {}, function failure() {}` vs. the more common anonymous inline functions.



Also, the latter syntax names the function for the stack frame, which is useful for debugging. You will sometimes see MyClass.prototype.myFunc = function myFunc_(){}, because otherwise myFunc is only an anonymous function assigned to a property on the prototype object.

And the trailing underscore is to placate some version of IE. Or something. I can't keep it all strait when I'm just out of bed.


That double-naming thing is going out of fashion, since modern browsers + node.js all know how to figure out function names without it.


The primary difference is "hoisting" https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe.... Closure can be created in both cases.

Also, functions have names.

     var funcName = function () {};  
     funcName.name; // ""

     function func2() {};  
     func2.name; // "func2"  
Thus, anynomous functions are truly anonymous whether or not they're assigned to a variable. `func2` can be assigned to a variable too. It'd retain its name (`func2`).


One pattern I have seen emerging is

    Object.prototype.method = function Object$method() { ... }
an interesting mixture of both method.


Neither would be any good, really for better coding.

namespace.functionName = function() { }

I'm not talking about performance here, but from a sheer maintainability nightmare that JS creates. If you care about this, don't let your functions be unbound.

The only reason to store a function in a var is because it is a closure.

And in a way, a closure is data encapsulation in a totally non OO way.


> namespace.functionName = function() { }

I'd rather use Asychronous Module Definitions: http://requirejs.org/docs/whyamd.html


IMO there's nothing wrong with declaring functions with a var. It's part and parcel of functions being a first class object in JS, and you being able to pass it around in functions.


I recommend named functions, because a stack trace 12 deep of all anonymous functions is a real bummer.


But:

    functionOne = function() {
    // Some code
};

(i.e. without the var) is represented same as:

   function functionTwo() {
    // Some code
}

is it?


No, with or without the var doesn't change the fact that it is still a variable declaration.

Without the "var" keyword, you just created a global variable rather than one restricted to your local scope.


The function declaration is still restricted to the scope it's within. The problem is that the function declaration does some additional hoisting magic nothing else gets. If you declare a variable in the middle of a function the variable name gets hoisted but the value does not. If you declare a function in the middle of another function the name gets hoisted but so does the value. This can lead to some additional quirkiness, which is why it's recommended to use the expression assigned ot a variable, to maintain consistency.


+99999


Also hoisting.


[deleted]


> And that's why I hate JavaScript.

more like: "And that's why I don't know how to program."




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: