A closure is a pairing of:
- A function, and
- A reference to that function's outer scope (lexical environment)
A lexical environment is part of every execution context (stack frame) and is a map between identifiers (ie. local variable names) and values.
Every function in JavaScript maintains a reference to its outer lexical environment. This reference is used to configure the execution context created when a function is invoked. This reference enables code inside the function to "see" variables declared outside the function, regardless of when and where the function is called.
If a function was called by a function, which in turn was called by another function, then a chain of references to outer lexical environments is created. This chain is called the scope chain.
In the following code, inner forms a closure with the lexical environment of the execution context created when foo is invoked, closing over variable secret:
function foo() {
const secret = Math.trunc(Math.random()*100)
return function inner() {
console.log(`The secret number is ${secret}.`)
}
}
const f = foo() // `secret` is not directly accessible from outside `foo`
f() // The only way to retrieve `secret`, is to invoke `f`
In other words: in JavaScript, functions carry a reference to a private "box of state", to which only they (and any other functions declared within the same lexical environment) have access. This box of the state is invisible to the caller of the function, delivering an excellent mechanism for data-hiding and encapsulation.
And remember: functions in JavaScript can be passed around like variables (first-class functions), meaning these pairings of functionality and state can be passed around your program: similar to how you might pass an instance of a class around in C++.
If JavaScript did not have closures, then more states would have to be passed between functions explicitly, making parameter lists longer and code noisier.
So, if you want a function to always have access to a private piece of state, you can use a closure.
...and frequently we do want to associate the state with a function. For example, in Java or C++, when you add a private instance variable and a method to a class, you are associating state with functionality.
In C and most other common languages, after a function returns, all the local variables are no longer accessible because the stack-frame is destroyed. In JavaScript, if you declare a function within another function, then the local variables of the outer function can remain accessible after returning from it. In this way, in the code above, secret remains available to the function object inner, after it has been returned from foo.
Uses of Closures
Closures are useful whenever you need a private state associated with a function. This is a very common scenario - and remember: JavaScript did not have a class syntax until 2015, and it still does not have a private field syntax. Closures meet this need.
Private Instance Variables
In the following code, the function toString closes over the details of the car.
function Car(manufacturer, model, year, color) {
return {
toString() {
return `${manufacturer} ${model} (${year}, ${color})`
}
}
}
const car = new Car('Aston Martin','V8 Vantage','2012','Quantum Silver')
console.log(car.toString())
Functional Programming
In the following code, the function inner closes over both fn and args.
function curry(fn) {
const args = []
return function inner(arg) {
if(args.length === fn.length) return fn(...args)
args.push(arg)
return inner
}
}
function add(a, b) {
return a + b
}
const curriedAdd = curry(add)
console.log(curriedAdd(2)(3)()) // 5
Event-Oriented Programming
In the following code, function onClick closes over variable BACKGROUND_COLOR.
const $ = document.querySelector.bind(document)
const BACKGROUND_COLOR = 'rgba(200,200,242,1)'
function onClick() {
$('body').style.background = BACKGROUND_COLOR
}
$('button').addEventListener('click', onClick)
<button>Set background color</button>
Modularization
In the following example, all the implementation details are hidden inside an immediately executed function expression. The functions tick and toString close over the private state and functions they need to complete their work. Closures have enabled us to modularise and encapsulate our code.
let namespace = {};
(function foo(n) {
let numbers = []
function format(n) {
return Math.trunc(n)
}
function tick() {
numbers.push(Math.random() * 100)
}
function toString() {
return numbers.map(format)
}
n.counter = {
tick,
toString
}
}(namespace))
const counter = namespace.counter
counter.tick()
counter.tick()
console.log(counter.toString())
Examples
Example 1
This example shows that the local variables are not copied in the closure: the closure maintains a reference to the original variables themselves. It is as though the stack-frame stays alive in memory even after the outer function exits.
function foo() {
let x = 42
let inner = function() { console.log(x) }
x = x+1
return inner
}
var f = foo()
f() // logs 43
Example 2
In the following code, three methods log, increment, and update all close over the same lexical environment.
And every time createObject is called, a new execution context (stack frame) is created and a completely new variable x, and a new set of functions (log etc.) are created, that close over this new variable.
function createObject() {
let x = 42;
return {
log() { console.log(x) },
increment() { x++ },
update(value) { x = value }
}
}
const o = createObject()
o.increment()
o.log() // 43
o.update(5)
o.log() // 5
const p = createObject()
p.log() // 42
Example 3
If you are using variables declared using var, be careful you understand which variable you are closing over. Variables declared using var are hoisted. This is much less of a problem in modern JavaScript due to the introduction of let and const.
In the following code, each time around the loop, a new function inner is created, which closes over i. But because var i is hoisted outside the loop, all of these inner functions close over the same variable, meaning that the final value of i (3) is printed, three times.
function foo() {
var result = []
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
result.push(function inner() { console.log(i) } )
}
return result
}
const result = foo()
// The following will print `3`, three times...
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
result[i]()
}
Final points:
- Whenever a function is declared in JavaScript closure is created.
- Returning a
function from inside another function is the classic example of closure, because the state inside the outer function is implicitly available to the returned inner function, even after the outer function has completed execution.
- Whenever you use
eval() inside a function, a closure is used. The text you eval can reference local variables of the function, and in the non-strict mode, you can even create new local variables by using eval('var foo = …').
- When you use
new Function(…) (the Function constructor) inside a function, it does not close over its lexical environment: it closes over the global context instead. The new function cannot reference the local variables of the outer function.
- A closure in JavaScript is like keeping a reference (NOT a copy) to the scope at the point of function declaration, which in turn keeps a reference to its outer scope, and so on, all the way to the global object at the top of the scope chain.
- A closure is created when a function is declared; this closure is used to configure the execution context when the function is invoked.
- A new set of local variables is created every time a function is called.
Links
I use javascript:void(0).
Three reasons. Encouraging the use of # amongst a team of developers inevitably leads to some using the return value of the function called like this:
function doSomething() {
//Some code
return false;
}
But then they forget to use return doSomething() in the onclick and just use doSomething().
A second reason for avoiding # is that the final return false; will not execute if the called function throws an error. Hence the developers have to also remember to handle any error appropriately in the called function.
A third reason is that there are cases where the onclick event property is assigned dynamically. I prefer to be able to call a function or assign it dynamically without having to code the function specifically for one method of attachment or another. Hence my onclick (or on anything) in HTML markup look like this:
onclick="someFunc.call(this)"
OR
onclick="someFunc.apply(this, arguments)"
Using javascript:void(0) avoids all of the above headaches, and I haven't found any examples of a downside.
So if you're a lone developer then you can clearly make your own choice, but if you work as a team you have to either state:
Use href="#", make sure onclick always contains return false; at the end, that any called function does not throw an error and if you attach a function dynamically to the onclick property make sure that as well as not throwing an error it returns false.
OR
Use href="javascript:void(0)"
The second is clearly much easier to communicate.
Best Solution
This is a very interesting question. I've always put my CSS
<link href="...">s before my JS<script src="...">s because "I read one time that it's better." So, you're right; it's high time we do some actual research!I set up my own test harness in Node (code below). Basically, I:
<head>to execute<body>to execute, which is analogous toDOMReady.Results
First, with the CSS file delayed by 500ms:
Next, I set jQuery to delay by 500ms instead of the CSS:
Finally, I set both jQuery and the CSS to delay by 500ms:
Conclusions
First, it's important to note that I'm operating under the assumption that you have scripts located in the
<head>of your document (as opposed to the end of the<body>). There are various arguments regarding why you might link to your scripts in the<head>versus the end of the document, but that's outside the scope of this answer. This is strictly about whether<script>s should go before<link>s in the<head>.In modern DESKTOP browsers, it looks like linking to CSS first never provides a performance gain. Putting CSS after script gets you a trivial amount of gain when both CSS and script are delayed, but gives you large gains when CSS is delayed. (Shown by the
lastcolumns in the first set of results.)Given that linking to CSS last does not seem to hurt performance but can provide gains under certain circumstances, you should link to external stylesheets after you link to external scripts only on desktop browsers if the performance of old browsers is not a concern. Read on for the mobile situation.
Why?
Historically, when a browser encountered a
<script>tag pointing to an external resource, the browser would stop parsing the HTML, retrieve the script, execute it, then continue parsing the HTML. In contrast, if the browser encountered a<link>for an external stylesheet, it would continue parsing the HTML while it fetched the CSS file (in parallel).Hence, the widely-repeated advice to put stylesheets first – they would download first, and the first script to download could be loaded in parallel.
However, modern browsers (including all of the browsers I tested with above) have implemented speculative parsing, where the browser "looks ahead" in the HTML and begins downloading resources before scripts download and execute.
In old browsers without speculative parsing, putting scripts first will affect performance since they will not download in parallel.
Browser Support
Speculative parsing was first implemented in: (along with the percentage of worldwide desktop browser users using this version or greater as of Jan 2012)
In total, roughly 85% of desktop browsers in use today support speculative loading. Putting scripts before CSS will have a performance penalty on 15% of users globally; YMMV based on your site's specific audience. (And remember that number is shrinking.)
On mobile browsers, it's a little harder to get definitive numbers simply due to how heterogeneous the mobile browser and OS landscape is. Since speculative rendering was implemented in WebKit 525 (released Mar 2008), and just about every worthwhile mobile browser is based on WebKit, we can conclude that "most" mobile browsers should support it. According to quirksmode, iOS 2.2/Android 1.0 use WebKit 525. I have no idea what Windows Phone looks like.
However, I ran the test on my Android 4 device, and while I saw numbers similar to the desktop results, I hooked it up to the fantastic new remote debugger in Chrome for Android, and Network tab showed that the browser was actually waiting to download the CSS until the JavaScripts completely loaded – in other words, even the newest version of WebKit for Android does not appear to support speculative parsing. I suspect it might be turned off due to the CPU, memory, and/or network constraints inherent to mobile devices.
Code
Forgive the sloppiness – this was Q&D.
app.js
css.html
js.html
test.js
jquery.js was jquery-1.7.1.min.js