new is evil!

newisevil.js

var Person = function( name ){ this.name = name };
Person.create = function(name) { return new Person(name) };

Brian = new Person('brianleroux');
Tim = Person.create('tim');

// Lame, I would do this one of three ways depending on how it will be used

// If the example really was this simple and there was nothing else involved,
// I would use object literals.  No need to overcomplicate things
Brian = {name: "brian"};
Tim = {name: "tim"};

// Assuming there was a reason for more complicated encapsulation, the "best" in some ways
// is a closure that returns objects.  Then you can have true private functions and variables
// and there is no need for "this" and "bind" all over the place.
function createPerson(name) {
  return {name: name};
}

Brian = createPerson('brian');
Tim = createPerson('tim');

// However, sometimes you need raw speed, or want to inherit from another object.
// In that case prototypal objects are simple and perfect.

// Make a prototype of your objects (aka class)
var Person = {};

// And make a constructor factory that creates these things for you
function createPerson(name) {
  var person = Object.create(Person);
  person.name = name;
  return person;
}

Brian = createPerson('brian');
Tim = createPerson('tim');

// Also you can put the initialize code in the prototype itself so that it can be inherited later on.
var Person = {
  initialize: function (name) {
    this.name = name;
  }
};

Brian = Object.create(Person);
Brian.initialize('brian');
Tim = Object.create(Person);
Tim.initialize('tim');

// And a "subclass" of Person is the exact same thing as an "instance" of Person.
// You simply inherit and specialize
Programmer = Object.create(Person);
Programmer.hobby = "hack";

You are just using a shorthand for new Object() when you write {}

Yes it's sad that the standard library (Object, Date, RegExp, ...) are all constructor based. I'm saying we shouldn't continue this confusing concept.

Though it could be said it's shortcut for Object.create(Object.prototype) since the Object constructor doesn't do anything.

Assuming it was ECMA5 I spose you're right, but that was certainly an afterthought...

And "new" can be implemented in pure ES5 even if it wasn't part of the langauge.

new Foo(1, 2, 3)
// is the same as
Foo.call(Object.create(Foo.prototype), 1, 2, 3)

The only diff I'm really seeing here is more noise for the same result. Gotta love those patterns!

Yeah, I'm not against the patterns, I'm against the magical "new" syntax that confuses newbies. It looks simple and class based, but it's not!

Saying function A inherits from function B really means that function A has a property called "prototype" that inherits from another object that function B happens to point to also via "prototype" and "instances" of function A are really just objects that inherit from A's prototype. Tell me that's not confusing!

I dunno. At this point, it makes sense to me. Its tough, bc I sorta like how: new Whatever() reads in some cases but perhaps that is a C hangover. ;P

Been finding myself using obj literals when I need a singleton and new Whatever()'s for, well, things that I want to treat as a type. Looking at this syntax does make me sorta puke a little in my mouth. Not that it matters: eventually we will get over all this OO bs and start using a lisp variants!

new Foo(1, 2, 3)
// is the same as
Foo.call(Object.create(Foo.prototype), 1, 2, 3)

It is not the same, but this is the same:
var a = new Foo(1, 2, 3);
// is the same
var a = Object.create(Foo.prototype, {
constructor: {
value: Foo,
enumerable: false
}
});
var b = Foo.call(a, 1, 2, 3);
if (b === Object(b)) a = b;

Good point Dmitry, it's so complicated what all "new" does, I can't even remember everything.

var a = new new new new new new function(){ return arguments.callee;}

new is fun, but way too confusing.