Step one is to understand what constructor
and prototype
are all about. It's not difficult, but one has to let go of "inheritance" in the classical sense.
The constructor
The constructor
property does not cause any particular effects in your program, except that you can look at it to see which function was used in conjuction with the operator new
to create your object. If you typed new Bar()
it will be Bar
and you typed new Foo
it will be Foo
.
The prototype
The prototype
property is used for lookup in case the object in question does not have the property asked for. If you write x.attr
, JavaScript will try to find attr
among x
's attributes. If it cant find it, it will look in x.__proto__
. If it's not there either, it will look in x.__proto__.__proto__
and so on as long as __proto__
is defiend.
So what is __proto__
and what has it got to do with prototype
? Shortly put, prototype
is for "types" while __proto__
is for "instances". (I say that with quotation marks because there's not really any difference between types and instances). When you write x = new MyType()
, what happens (among other things) is that x.__proto___
is set to MyType.prototype
.
The question
Now, the above should be all you need to derive what your own example means, but to try and answer your actual question; "why write something like":
Bar.prototype.constructor = Bar;
I personally have never seen it and I find it a little silly, but in the context you've given it will mean that the Bar.prototype
-object (created by using new Foo(42)
) will pose as have being created by Bar
rather than Foo
. I suppose the idea is some make something similar to C++/Java/C#-like languages where a type-lookup (the constructor
property) will always yield the most specific type rather than the type of the more generic object further up in the prototype-chain.
My advice: don't think very much about "inheritance" in JavaScript. The concepts of interfaces and mixins makes more sense. And dont check objects for their types. Check for the required properties instead ("if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck").
Trying to force JavaScript into a classical inheritance model, when all that it has is the prototype-mechanism as described above, is what causes the confusion. The many people that suggested to manually set the constructor
-property probably tried to do just that. Abstractions are fine, but this manual assignment of the constructor property is not very idiomatic usage of JavaScript.