Me, my self and that

So what's wrong with using _self ?

So what's wrong standardizing to self?

@mauris Nothing. That's my point - you should use "self".

@darkmantiscs If we are to adopt a convention, I personally prefer "self" over "_self", given the concept of private variables (which the underscore denotes) doesn't really hold when creating a reference within individual functions.

@iwootten I was writing to @darkmantiscs not you :D

Don't get me wrong, I don't really mind, I see what you're saying about the private variables, but I was just asking to see what the reasons were, and that explains it :)

"self" doesn't seem correct. I think we should instead use the name of the caller or something like the name of the caller.

Say your object is an Article, if you're going to lose the scope of "this" then write this:
var article = this;

If you're dealing with an object like:
$("#menu")
then do this:
var menu = this;

That makes way more sense to me.

@gagege self provides a conventional approach for use within all objects, it's understood by whoever reads the code. Using the classes object name instead makes for less readable code. If I'm looking for a reference to the class that I'm in, I wouldn't expect to see the name of it as it's own reference.

@brillinfo On the contrary, I don't think it makes it less readable at all. If I use the caller's name, I know exactly what I'm dealing with. "menu.open()" is a lot easier on the brain than "self.open()".

The problem I have with "self" is that it doesn't mean anything. If you use "self" you have to go look at who called the function, which mean possibly scrolling up a few hundred lines or going to a different file.

My method instantly tells me who the caller is. I don't even think about a "caller" actually. I just think "I'm making this object do this."

Also, if we use self, what should we do if we want another callback? Write "self2"? ;)

Edit: Let me add one more thing. When you're in a callback or closure you're no longer in the class you were in. You're in no man's land, that's why you can't use "this" anymore and it's why I have no problem using the name of the object as a reference to the object. That's how I think of it, anyway.

@gagege I guess my original point is related to a singleton based approach, where you would have a single reference to this. More the point was the generic term that's used in those cases.

Unless you have several different classes described in 1 file, you'd have no need to backtrack through hundreds of lines of code to determine what class the file you're currently in is.

I believe the accepted convention is "that"

http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html

@edtheprogrammer Not for the majority of javascript I've worked in. Like I said, how can this ever equal that? - in common vernacular they're opposites.

Remember, Crockford is just a man.

var x = this should be considered a code smell. My 2 pence.

I'm not a fan of self, I much prefer var _this = this

@professorsloth Where large businesses are concerned and different development strategies exist, it rarely is that simple.

@stevefrost Oh, Steve - just confuse matters why don't you?

Also, no.

I agree. self is the only acceptable var name. We only use

var self = this;

in all out Node.js code and backbone code.