Closures seem to frighten people a bit. Partially I suspect this is down to the academic nature of the term "closure". It sounds like something Californians look to achieve, not something to help you write software. (Disclosure: I mostly grew up in San Francisco, so I'm allowed to poke fun at my fellow Californians. Don't Try This At Home.) I suspect it's also because if you don't know the rules for them, they seem mysterious, and the mysterious is often frightening.
First off, what is a closure? I'll leave a thorough definition to my academic betters, but let's put it this way for my fellow plodders and I: A closure is a function with data intrinsically bound to it.
Consider this code:
function updateDisplay(panel, contentId)
{
var url;
url = 'getcontent?id=' + contentId;
jsonRequest(
url,
function(resp)
{
if (resp.err)
{
panel.addClassName('error');
panel.update(
'Error retrieving content ID '
+ contentId
+ ' from "'
+ url
+ '", error: '
+ resp.err);
}
else
{
panel.removeClassName('error');
panel.update(resp.json.content);
}
}
);
}
This updates a panel element based on the results of a call to retrieve some JSON data. The call to the jsonRequest
function accepts two parameters: The URL that will return the JSON data, and a callback function to trigger when the request completes (one way or the other). If the data was returned successfully, the callback sets the content of the panel from the JSON data and makes sure that the "error" CSS class is not set on the element; if there's an error, it shows details about the error and sets the "error" CSS class. (In this example, we happen to be using Prototype to extend our panel element with the nifty class name and update methods, but that's as much to keep the example simple as anything else.)
The callback above is an example of a closure: A function with data bound to it, in this case the panel
and contentId
arguments we passed into the updateDisplay
function, and also updateDisplay
's url
local variable. It's useful to have this information bound to the callback, because the jsonRequest
function doesn't know anything about panel
or contentId
, it just knows about triggering the callback — but the callback has the information it needs to do its job.
Magic? Nah. I can't speak for closures in other languages, but there's nothing complicated about closures in JavaScript. Seriously. They're dead easy. You need to know, say, three things and you're good to go. Well, four things, but that's only because someone has been misinforming you. Here's a quick list of those four things, after which we'll delve in a bit deeper, and then I'll tell you something at the end that will surprise you for three seconds before you go "Oh, of course":
- In JavaScript, everything is a data structure, even functions, and — critically — even the context in which functions run. One aspect of that context is a "call object" (that's Flanagan's term, the ECMA specification uses "activation object" — I'll use "call object" because
I'm lazy and it's less typingI find it clearer). - JavaScript variable names are resolved on the basis of a "scope chain", which includes (among other things) the global object and all of the current call objects in scope.
- Functions in JavaScript are lexically scoped — for the plodders like me out there, that means that the things a function can access (the things "in scope" for it) are determined by the context in which the function is defined, not the context in which it's executed.
- Closures do not create memory leaks. Someone probably told you that they did at some point (perhaps they thought that's what Microsoft was trying to say here).
#1: Everything is a object
When we call a JavaScript function, the context of that call to the function — the parameters we've used, the variables within the function itself — are part of an object called the call object (or, again, "activation object" in ECMA parlance). The interpreter creates a call object for this particular execution of the function and sets some properties on that call object before passing it into the function's code. The properties are:
- A property called
arguments
which is an array (of sorts, in most implementations it's not actually an Array object) of the actual arguments we called the function with, plus acallee
property which is a reference to the function being called. - A property for each of the arguments defined by the function declaration. The values of these properties are set to the values passed into the function. If any arguments weren't specified (because JavaScript lets you call functions with however many arguments you want, regardless of the definition), properties for any missing arguments are still created on the call object — with the value
undefined
. - A property for every declared variable within the function (e.g., every "var" statement). (These start out with the value
undefined
.)
Let's look again at selected bits of the updateDisplay
function from earlier:
function updateDisplay(panel, contentId)
{
var url;
// ...
}
And let's assume we call it with a reference to a 'leftPanel' div and a contentId of 123:
updateDisplay(leftPanel, 123);
That creates a call object for this execution of updateDisplay
that essentially looks like this:
call.arguments = [leftPanel, 123]
call.arguments.callee = updateDisplay
call.panel = leftPanel
call.contentId = 123
call.url = undefined
This object is then used within the body of the function when the code uses the arguments panel
or contentId
, or the local variable url
, etc.
"But wait," you say. "I don't refer to an object when I use the arguments or variables in my function, I just use their names." Indeed — the use of the call object is implicit. How do we end up using the call object when we just write "contentId" (for instance)? Because once the call object is created, it's put at the top of the scope chain for the duration of the function call. Which takes us nicely to...
#2: Variable names are resolved using a "scope chain"
If you've written JavaScript in a browser environment, you've probably used the global document
object, and perhaps the global navigator
object as well. Here's the thing: Those aren't global objects. Those are properties of a global object — in fact, of the global object. The document
and navigator
properties are set up for you by the browser, but they're just properties of an object.
So how do you get away with just giving the property name, rather than giving the object name as well? Because of the scope chain, an ordered series (indeed, a chain) of objects. When the JavaScript interpreter sees an unqualified variable reference, it checks the top object on the scope chain to see if it has a property by that name: If so, it gets used; if not, the interpreter checks the next object down the chain. The global object is the bottom of the chain, so if you just type document.writeln("Blah blah blah")
, eventually the document
property is found on the global object and used.
(The global object is an abstract entity in the generic JavaScript definition, but in the specific case of a web browser you know it by another name: window
. In browsers, the window
object is the global object; it just also has a property, "window
", that refers to itself.)
So quick: Within a function, how do variable names get resolved? Right! When the function is being executed, the call object with all those nifty properties for the function's arguments and variables is put at the top of the scope chain. So during our call to updateDisplay
from earlier, the call object for the call is at the top of the scope chain, followed by the global object, like this:
When the interpreter sees a variable reference, say contentId
, it looks on the call object: If there's a contentId
property on the call object, it gets used; otherwise, the interpreter looks at the next object in the scope chain, which in this case is the global object.
(There's more to know about the scope chain than I've described here; the astute reader will be wondering, for instance, how objects and their instance members come into play, or what the with
statement does to things. Alas, we can't tackle everything all at once...)
But how can I know when I'm writing updateDisplay
that the scope chain will look like that? I mean, doesn't it depend on who's calling the function? Nope. And that brings us to our next point:
#3: Functions in JavaScript are lexically scoped
Okay, so we get the concept of the call object, which is created when we call a function; and we get the global object, which sits at the bottom of the scope chain to handle globals. But what's this "lexically scoped" thing? It's just a fancy way of saying that a function's scope is determined by where it's defined (e.g., the text defining it; léxis is Greek for "word" or "speech"), not where it's called.
Let's put that another way: When a function is defined, the code defining it is in some kind of context — a function is running, or the page itself is running if you've done the code at the top level. That context has an active scope chain when the function is defined. So when creating the function object, the interpreter creates a property on it (called [[Scope]] in the ECMA spec, but you can't access it directly) with a reference to the active execution context's scope chain. Even when the context goes away (e.g., the function returns), because the function object created by the definition has a reference to the scope chain, the scope chain isn't garbage collected — it's kept alive by the active reference to it from our function object. (Assuming that we've kept a reference to the function object, as we did in our example by passing it into the jsonRequest
method; otherwise, the function and the scope chain are both garbage-collected since nothing references them.)
Remember our closure at the beginning of this post? It gets a [[Scope]] property pointing to the scope chain in effect when updateDisplay
was called with panel
= leftPanel
, etc.:
So when we call it, first its scope chain is put in place, then the call object for this particular call to the function is put on top of the scope chain, and the function is executed with this chain:
And there we are, the closure can access panel
and all of the other properties of the call object for the call to updateDisplay
because they're on the scope chain. They're on the scope chain because that was stuck onto the closure's function object when it was created. No magic. Just objects, the scope chain, and lexical scoping all working together.
#4: Closures don't cause memory leaks
So why do people think closures cause memory leaks? A couple of reasons, I suspect, but chief among them being a bug in an issue with Internet Explorer. IE's DOM objects are not garbage-collected in the same way that JavaScript objects are; instead, IE shows its COM roots by using reference counting, a mechanism that is, unfortunately, prey to issues with circular references. Event handlers can easily end up being circular references, and so in IE it's easy to "leak" the memory associated with a DOM element and its event handler because they're referring to each other. (JavaScript's garbage collector doesn't have an issue with circular references; it works on the "reachability" principle rather than reference counting.) This is an issue with event handlers, rather than closures, but since many event handlers are written as closures, people associate it with closures. Fortunately, it's not that hard to kick IE into shape (in this particular way); Crockford talks about the problem and its solution here and many toolkits [like Prototype] will do this for you if you ask them nicely.
Lest I be accused of Microsoft-bashing, I should point out that IE is not the only browser that sometimes loses track of things; it's just by far the worst. Firefox 2 has a bad habit of leaking a bit of memory on XMLHttpRequest calls, which also frequently involve closures. The good news there is that Firefox 3 beta 3 is looking awfully good indeed on this front.
Separate from browser issues, though, if you're not really clear on how closures work, particularly with regard to the scope chain, you'll miss the fact that a closure keeps a reference to all of the variables and arguments in scope where it's created, not just the ones it uses; and so if you have (say) a massive temporary array allocated in that scope that the closure doesn't use, you might be tempted to say that the closure is causing the array's memory to leak. (The answer there is simple: Clear the array's variable when you're done with it.)
In Conclusion
There are lots of nifty things you can do with closures. I'll post a follow-up in a couple of days, "Closures By Example", demonstrating a few of them and just generally walking through some seemingly-complicated examples. But until then, I'll just reiterate my theme: Closures in JavaScript are not complicated. They're powerful, but if you understand that 1. Everything is a data structure, 2. Variables — I should probably call them unqualified references — are resolved according to a scope chain, and 3. The scope chain for a function is defined by where the function is defined lexically, you'll be golden.
Oh! I said I'd tell you something at the end that would surprise you for about three seconds before you said "Oh, of course." Here it is:
All JavaScript functions are closures.
Happy coding!
First comment :-)
ReplyDeleteNo really, it was an interesting reading.
Is there any reason why I should use closures for anything else but callback calls? I don't know of any but I've seen so many enclosures lately that I was starting to think that they have became obligatory or something.
Hey PePa --
ReplyDelete:-) Yes, I know what you mean.
I was kind of hoping that other readers would comment here, so I could blatantly steal their examples for the "Closures by example" follow-up post, but no one obliged.
I think in that follow-up post, I have addressed this question a bit. I hope so, anyway.
-- T.J. :-)
I should have mentioned that the follow-up post is here.
ReplyDelete-- T.J. :-)
Very nice post, it's nice to learn something new about something I've been using for a while. :) Javascript is by far my favorite language to work with, but there's so much more that I don't know about it. I've got syntax down well, I just lack a lot of the terminology and understanding of how things work behind the scenes.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to this.
Hi T! This is Tom, who did so pester you last night on Stack Overflow. :P
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thank you muchly for your help then, and this article now, too. It helped. :)
I think I may have had a moment of enlightenment with closures, particularly the (in)famous "loop mistake"... Each lap around the loop calls a function, returning a new value, opening up a brand new Execution Context and forming at "pile" of those context, which you then call when you need to. :) If I'm not right, I'm gonna eat my hat! :P
Thanks again!
Very clearly explained. Excellent writing. Thanks for your help!
ReplyDeleteSam from SO
Great post, from an excellent writer!
ReplyDeleteSeven years later, and it's still a great post. Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post, I always want to dive deeper into a language - this allows me to actually use the language, instead of being mystified by bugs. Anyhow, one issue is that the images in this post don't show up for me.
ReplyDeletewhat the hell this post is 12 years old.
ReplyDeletebut it seems a good post (since everybody said so),
I hate reading....