Is JavaScript's "new" keyword considered harmful?


Javascript Problem Overview

In another question, a user pointed out that the new keyword was dangerous to use and proposed a solution to object creation that did not use new. I didn't believe that was true, mostly because I've used Prototype, Scriptaculous and other excellent JavaScript libraries, and everyone of them used the new keyword.

In spite of that, yesterday I was watching Douglas Crockford's talk at YUI theater and he said the exactly same thing, that he didn't use the new keyword anymore in his code (Crockford on JavaScript - Act III: Function the Ultimate - 50:23 minutes).

Is it 'bad' to use the new keyword? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using it?

Javascript Solutions

Solution 1 - Javascript

Crockford has done a lot to popularize good JavaScript techniques. His opinionated stance on key elements of the language have sparked many useful discussions. That said, there are far too many people that take each proclamation of "bad" or "harmful" as gospel, refusing to look beyond one man's opinion. It can be a bit frustrating at times.

Use of the functionality provided by the new keyword has several advantages over building each object from scratch:

  1. Prototype inheritance. While often looked at with a mix of suspicion and derision by those accustomed to class-based OO languages, JavaScript's native inheritance technique is a simple and surprisingly effective means of code re-use. And the new keyword is the canonical (and only available cross-platform) means of using it.
  2. Performance. This is a side-effect of #1: if I want to add 10 methods to every object I create, I could just write a creation function that manually assigns each method to each new object... Or, I could assign them to the creation function's prototype and use new to stamp out new objects. Not only is this faster (no code needed for each and every method on the prototype), it avoids ballooning each object with separate properties for each method. On slower machines (or especially, slower JS interpreters) when many objects are being created this can mean a significant savings in time and memory.

And yes, new has one crucial disadvantage, ably described by other answers: if you forget to use it, your code will break without warning. Fortunately, that disadvantage is easily mitigated - simply add a bit of code to the function itself:

function foo()
   // if user accidentally omits the new keyword, this will 
   // silently correct the problem...
   if ( !(this instanceof foo) )
      return new foo();
   // constructor logic follows...

Now you can have the advantages of new without having to worry about problems caused by accidentally misuse.

John Resig goes into detail on this technique in his Simple "Class" Instantiation post, as well as including a means of building this behavior into your "classes" by default. Definitely worth a read... as is his upcoming book, Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja, which finds hidden gold in this and many other "harmful" features of the JavaScript language (the chapter on with is especially enlightening for those of us who initially dismissed this much-maligned feature as a gimmick).

A general-purpose sanity check

You could even add an assertion to the check if the thought of broken code silently working bothers you. Or, as some commented, use the check to introduce a runtime exception:

if ( !(this instanceof arguments.callee) ) 
   throw new Error("Constructor called as a function");

Note that this snippet is able to avoid hard-coding the constructor function name, as unlike the previous example it has no need to actually instantiate the object - therefore, it can be copied into each target function without modification.

ES5 taketh away

As Sean McMillan, stephenbez and jrh noted, the use of arguments.callee is invalid in ES5's strict mode. So the above pattern will throw an error if you use it in that context.

ES6 and an entirely harmless new

ES6 introduces Classes to JavaScript - no, not in the weird Java-aping way that old-school Crockford did, but in spirit much more like the light-weight way he (and others) later adopted, taking the best parts of prototypal inheritance and baking common patterns into the language itself.

...and part of that includes a safe new:

class foo
    // constructor logic that will ONLY be hit 
    // if properly constructed via new

// bad invocation
foo(); // throws, 
// Uncaught TypeError: class constructors must be invoked with 'new'

But what if you don't want to use the new sugar? What if you just want to update your perfectly fine old-style prototypal code with the sort of safety checks shown above such that they keep working in strict mode?

Well, as Nick Parsons notes, ES6 provides a handy check for that as well, in the form of

function foo()
  if ( !( ) 
     throw new Error("Constructor called as a function");
  // constructor logic follows...

So whichever approach you choose, you can - with a bit of thought and good hygiene - use new without harm.

Solution 2 - Javascript

I have just read some parts of his Crockfords book "Javascript: The Good Parts". I get the feeling that he considers everything that ever has bitten him as harmful:

About switch fall through: > I never allow switch cases to fall > through to the next case. I once found > a bug in my code caused by an > unintended fall through immediately > after having made a vigorous speech > about why fall through was sometimes > useful. (page 97, ISBN > 978-0-596-51774-8)

About ++ and -- > The ++ (increment) and -- (decrement) > operators have been known to > contribute to bad code by encouraging > exessive trickiness. They are second > only to faulty architecture in > enabling viruses and other security > menaces. (page 122)

About new: > If you forget to include the new > prefix when calling a constructor > function, then this will not be > bound to the new object. Sadly, this > will be bound to the global object, so > instead of augmenting your new object, > you will be clobbering global > variables. That is really bad. There > is no compile warning, and there is no > runtime warning. (page 49)

There are more, but I hope you get the picture.

My answer to your question: No, it's not harmful. but if you forget to use it when you should you could have some problems. If you are developing in a good environment you notice that.


About a year after this answer was written the 5th edition of ECMAScript was released, with support for strict mode. In strict mode, this is no longer bound to the global object but to undefined.

Solution 3 - Javascript

Javascript being dynamic language there a zillion ways to mess up where another language would stop you.

Avoiding a fundamental language feature such as new on the basis that you might mess up is a bit like removing your shiny new shoes before walking through a minefield just in case you might get your shoes muddy.

I use a convention where function names begin with a lower case letter and 'functions' that are actually class definitions begin with a upper case letter. The result is a really quite compelling visual clue that the 'syntax' is wrong:-

var o = MyClass();  // this is clearly wrong.

On top of this good naming habits help. After all functions do things and therefore there should be a verb in its name whereas classes represent objects and are nouns and adjectives with no verb.

var o = chair() // Executing chair is daft.
var o = createChair() // makes sense.

Its interesting how SO's syntax colouring has interpretted the code above.

Solution 4 - Javascript

I am newbie to Javascript so maybe I am just not too experienced in providing a good view point to this. Yet I want to share my view on this "new" thing.

I have come from the C# world where using the keyword "new" is so natural that it is the factory design pattern that looks weird to me.

When I first code in Javascript, I don't realize that there is the "new" keyword and code like the one in YUI pattern and it doesn't take me long to run into disaster. I lose track of what a particular line is supposed to be doing when looking back the code I've written. More chaotic is that my mind can't really transit between object instances boundaries when I am "dry-running" the code.

Then, I found the "new" keyword which to me, it "separate" things. With the new keyword, it creates things. Without the new keyword, I know I won't confuse it with creating things unless the function I am invoking gives me strong clues of that.

For instance, with var bar=foo(); I have no clues as what bar could possibly be.... Is it a return value or is it a newly created object? But with var bar = new foo(); I know for sure bar is an object.

Solution 5 - Javascript

Another case for new is what I call Pooh Coding. Winnie the Pooh follows his tummy. I say go with the language you are using, not against it.

Chances are that the maintainers of the language will optimize the language for the idioms they try to encourage. If they put a new keyword into the language they probably think it makes sense to be clear when creating a new instance.

Code written following the language's intentions will increase in efficiency with each release. And code avoiding the key constructs of the language will suffer with time.

EDIT: And this goes well beyond performance. I can't count the times I've heard (or said) "why the hell did they do that?" when finding strange looking code. It often turns out that at the time when the code was written there was some "good" reason for it. Following the Tao of the language is your best insurance for not having your code ridiculed some years from now.

Solution 6 - Javascript

I wrote a post on how to mitigate the problem of calling a constructor without the new keyword.
It's mostly didactic, but it shows how you can create constructors that work with or without new and doesn't require you to add boilerplate code to test this in every constructor.

Here's the gist of the technique:

 * Wraps the passed in constructor so it works with
 * or without the new keyword
 * @param {Function} realCtor The constructor function.
 *    Note that this is going to be wrapped
 *    and should not be used directly 
function ctor(realCtor){
  // This is going to be the actual constructor
  return function wrapperCtor(){
    var obj; // object that will be created
    if (this instanceof wrapperCtor) {
      // Called with new
      obj = this;
    } else {
      // Called without new. Create an empty object of the
      // correct type without running that constructor
      surrogateCtor.prototype = wrapperCtor.prototype;
      obj = new surrogateCtor();
    // Call the real constructor function
    realCtor.apply(obj, arguments);
    return obj;

  function surrogateCtor() {}

Here's how to use it:

// Create our point constructor
Point = ctor(function(x,y){
  this.x = x;
  this.y = y;
// This is good
var pt = new Point(20,30);
// This is OK also
var pt2 = Point(20,30);

Solution 7 - Javascript

The rationale behind not using the new keyword, is simple:

By not using it at all, you avoid the pitfall that comes with accidentally omitting it. The construction pattern that YUI uses, is an example of how you can avoid the new keyword altogether"

var foo = function () {
    var pub= { };
    return pub;
var bar = foo();

Alternatively you could so this:

function foo() { }
var bar = new foo();

But by doing so you run risk of someone forgetting to use the new keyword, and the this operator being all fubar. AFAIK there is no advantage to doing this (other than you are used to it).

At The End Of The Day: It's about being defensive. Can you use the new statement? Yes. Does it make your code more dangerous? Yes.

If you have ever written C++, it's akin to setting pointers to NULL after you delete them.

Solution 8 - Javascript

I think "new" adds clarity to the code. And clarity is worth everything. Good to know there are pitfalls, but avoiding them by avoiding clarity doesn't seem like the way for me.

Solution 9 - Javascript

Case 1: new isn't required and should be avoided
var str = new String('asd');  // type: object
var str = String('asd');      // type: string

var num = new Number(12);     // type: object
var num = Number(12);         // type: number
Case 2: new is required, otherwise you'll get an error
new Date().getFullYear();     // correct, returns the current year, i.e. 2010
Date().getFullYear();         // invalid, returns an error

Solution 10 - Javascript

Here is the briefest summary I could make of the two strongest arguments for and against using the new operator:

Argument against new
  1. Functions designed to be instantiated as objects using the new operator can have disastrous effects if they are incorrectly invoked as normal functions. A function's code in such a case will be executed in the scope where the function is called, instead of in the scope of a local object as intended. This can cause global variables and properties to get overwritten with disastrous consequences.
  2. Finally, writing function Func(), and then calling Func.prototype and adding stuff to it so that you can call new Func() to construct your object seems ugly to some programmers, who would rather use another style of object inheritance for architectural and stylistic reasons.

For more on this argument check out Douglas Crockford's great and concise book Javascript: The Good Parts. In fact check it out anyway.

Argument in favor of new
  1. Using the new operator along with prototypal assignment is fast.
  2. That stuff about accidentally running a constructor function's code in the global namespace can easily be prevented if you always include a bit of code in your constructor functions to check to see if they are being called correctly, and, in the cases where they aren't, handling the call appropriately as desired.

See John Resig's post for a simple explanation of this technique, and for a generally deeper explanation of the inheritance model he advocates.

Solution 11 - Javascript

I agree with pez and some here.

It seems obvious to me that "new" is self descriptive object creation, where the YUI pattern Greg Dean describes is completely obscured.

The possibility someone could write var bar = foo; or var bar = baz(); where baz isn't an object creating method seems far more dangerous.

Solution 12 - Javascript

I think new is evil, not because if you forget to use it by mistake it might cause problems but because it screws up the inheritance chain, making the language tougher to understand.

JavaScript is prototype-based object-oriented. Hence every object MUST be created from another object like so var newObj=Object.create(oldObj). Here oldObj is called the prototype of newObj (hence "prototype-based"). This implies that if a property is not found in newObj then it will be searched in oldObj. newObj by default will thus be an empty object but due to its prototype chain it appears to have all the values of oldObj.

On the other hand if you do var newObj=new oldObj(), the prototype of newObj is oldObj.prototype, which is unnecessarily difficult to understand.

The trick is to use

  var F = function(){};
  F.prototype = proto;
  var instance = new F();
  return instance;

It is inside this function and only here that new should be used. After this simply use the Object.create() method. The method resolves the prototype problem.

Solution 13 - Javascript

IMNSHO "new" is a flawed concept in 2021 JavaScript. It adds words where none are needed. It makes the return value of a function/constructor implicit and forces the use of this in the function/constructor. Adding noise to code is never a good thing.

// With new
function Point(x, y) {
    this.x = x
    this.y = y
let point = new Point(0,0)


// Without new
function Point(x, y) {
    return { x, y }
let point = Point(0,0)


All content for this solution is sourced from the original question on Stackoverflow.

The content on this page is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Content TypeOriginal AuthorOriginal Content on Stackoverflow
QuestionPablo FernandezView Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - JavascriptShog9View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - JavascriptsomeView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - JavascriptAnthonyWJonesView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 4 - JavascriptConradView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 5 - JavascriptPEZView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 6 - JavascriptJuan MendesView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 7 - JavascriptGreg DeanView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 8 - JavascriptPEZView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 9 - Javascriptnyuszika7hView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 10 - JavascriptalegscogsView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 11 - JavascriptannakataView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 12 - JavascriptMihir GogateView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 13 - JavascriptChris BuckView Answer on Stackoverflow