Skip to main content

JavaScript Self-Executing Anonymous Functions Simplified

I've seen code like this everywhere, and maybe you have too. A function (hopefully wrapped in parenthesis) followed by some variables in parenthesis.

  (function(a, $){
    ... code ...
  })(window, jQuery);

I eventually started trying to research what they were, how they worked, and why they should be used. Most of the explanations got thick quick, so I thought I'd simplify things.

In essence, this is declaring and calling a function all at the same time. The easiest way to think of it (for me, anyway) is that this:

  (function(a, $){
    ... code ...
  })(window, jQuery);

...is roughly equivalent to this:

  var myFunction = function(window, $){
    ... code ...
  }

  myFunction(window, jQuery);

There are some (pretty big) differences (such as when and how it runs), but this is enough to get you started.

The parenthesis wrapping the function aren't required, but are considered best practice and common courtesy because they help to identify this function as self-executing, and making it easier to find the parameters being passed in.

Without getting too deep into it, these functions are really nice for compartmentalizing code (restricting access and preventing conflicts), as well as making your code more compressible. Hopefully some day when I have the time (and more understanding), I can write about this some more, but for now I wanted to share this little tidbit that has helped me understand what was going on here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CSS line-height Units Explained

In Chris Coyier's recent article, " Fun with line-height! ", he mentions that we often use unitless values for line-height so that it's proportional to the font size. This is only part of the story, and I was reminded of a Stack Overflow question that got me investigating more about how line-height worked with regards to the various CSS units. If you're declaring the line-height on each element, you won't notice any difference. But if you're not crazy and using the first C of CSS (that's 'Cascading', by the way), then the inherited line-height might not work the way you expect. Disclaimer: This is my understanding after doing some research and testing. I may not be completely correct. TL;DR When using a relative unit (em, %), the line-height is calculated based on the font size of the element where the line-height is defined. This line-height is then inherited, unchanged, by each of its descendants. So we end up with a line...

Get width and height of a remote image with VB .NET

The Problem I wanted to grab the width and height of an image that was on a remote server. I've done this with PHP, but never in .NET. The Solution I did a little digging and came across this code (slightly modified for my own purposes). Dim request As HttpWebRequest = DirectCast(WebRequest.Create(URL), HttpWebRequest) request.Method = "GET" request.Accept = "image/*" Dim response As HttpWebResponse = DirectCast(request.GetResponse(), HttpWebResponse) Dim s As Stream = response.GetResponseStream() Dim bmp As New Bitmap(s) Width = bmp.Width Height = bmp.Height

Be Careful Using SASS @extend, CSS3 Selectors, and IE8

I recently ran into a situation where some of my styles were broken in Internet Explorer 8. What makes this different from all the other times my styles broke in IE8 was that, as far as I could tell, it was correct. Consider the following code: %highlighted { background-color: #ff0; color: #333; } .keyword.is-active { @extend %highlighted; padding: 10px; text-transform: uppercase; } No problem, right? Then why isn't it working? I wasn't sure, until I looked at the compiled CSS and saw something like this: .some-list:nth-child(2n), .is-highlighted, .keyword.is-active { background-color: #ff0; color: #333; } .keyword.is-active { padding: 10px; text-transform: uppercase; } Since IE8 doesn't support the css selector nth-child , it ignores the entire rule . Without looking at the final output, there's no way of knowing if this will happen ahead of time. So what can you do? Well,...