Is my JS/Jquery methodology good?
- by absentx
I always struggle with which of the stack sites is best to post "questions of theory" like this, but I think programmers is the best, if not, as usual a mod will move it etc...
I am seeking critique on what has become my normal methodology of writing javascript. I have become heavily reliant on the Jquery library, but I think this has helped me learn the native language better also. Anyways, please critique the following style of JS coding...buried are a lot of questions of scope, if you could point out the strengths and weaknesses of this style I would appreciate it.
var critique ={
start: function(){
globalness = 'GLOBAL-GLOBAL'; //available to all critique's methods
var notglobalness = 'LOCAL-LOCAL';// only available to critiques start method
//am I using the "method" teminology properly here??
$('#stuff').on('click','a.closer-target',function(){
$target = $(this);
if($target.hasClass('active')){
$target.removeClass('active');
}
else{
$target.addClass('active');
critique.madness($target);
}
})
console.log(notglobalness+': at least I am useful at home');
console.log('note here that: '+notglobalness+' is no longer available after this point, lets continue on:');
critique.madness(notglobalness);
},
madness: function($e){
// do a bunch of awesomeness with $e
//but continue to keep it seperate because you think its best to keep things isolated.
//send to the next function when complete here
console.log('here is globalness, which is still available from the start method of critique!! ' + globalness);
console.log('lets see if the globalness carries on to a new var object!!');
console.log('the locally isolated variable of NOTGLOBALNESS is available here because it was passed to this method, lets show it:'+$e);
carryOn.start();
}
} //end critique
var carryOn={
start: function(){
console.log('any chance critique.globalness will work here??? lets see: ' +globalness);
console.log('it absolutely does');
}
}
$(document).ready(critique.start);
