10_modules.txt

:chap_num: 10
:prev_link: 09_regexp
:next_link: 11_language
:load_files: ["js/10_modules.js", "js/loadfile.js"]

= Modules =

[quote, Master Yuan-Ma, The Book of Programming]
____
A beginning programmer writes his programs like an ant builds her
hill, one piece at a time, without thought for the bigger structure.
His programs will be like loose sand. They may stand for a while, but
growing too big they fall apart.

Realizing this problem, the programmer will start to spend a lot of
time thinking about structure. His programs will be rigidly
structured, like rock sculptures. They are solid, but when they must
change, violence must be done to them.

The master programmer knows when to apply structure and when to leave
things in their simple form. His programs are like clay, solid yet
malleable.
____

Every program has a shape. On a small scale, this shape is determined
by the division into functions, and the blocks of code inside of them.
Programmers have lots of freedom in the shape they give their
programs. It is determined more by good (or bad) taste, than by the
program's intended functionality.

When looking at a larger program in its entirety, individual functions
start to blend into the background, and it would be good to have a
larger unit of organization.

_Modules_ divide programs into clusters of code that, by _some_
criterion, “belong” together. This chapter explores some of the
benefits that such clustering provides, and shows techniques for
building modules in JavaScript.

== Organization ==

There are number of reasons why authors divide their books into
chapters and sections. They make it easier for a reader to see how the
book is built up, or to find a specific part that they are interested
in. They also help the author by providing a clear focus for every
section.

The benefits of splitting a program into several files or modules are
analogous—it helps people who aren't yet familiar with the code find
what they are looking for, and helps the programmer put things that
are closely related close to each other.

Some programs are even organized along the model of a traditional
text, with a well-defined order in which the reader is encouraged to
go through the program, and lots of prose (comments) providing a
coherent description of the code. This make reading the program a lot
less intimidating (reading unknown code is usually intimidating). But
is has the downside that it is more work to set up, and makes changing
the program rather difficult, because prose tends to be more tightly
interconnected than code.

As a more general rule, organization has a cost, and in the early
stages of a project, when not quite sure yet what goes where or what
kind of modules the program needs at all, I endorse a minimalist,
structure-less attitude. Just put everything into a single flat file
until the code stabilizes. That way, you won't be over-thinking the
organization with insufficient information, won't be wasting time
moving pieces of the program back and forth, and won't accidentally
lock yourself into a structure that does not actually fit your
program.

== Namespaces ==

Most modern programming languages have a scope level between “global”
(everyone can see it) and “local” (only this function can see it).
JavaScript does not. Thus, by default, everything that needs to be
visible outside of the small scope of the current function is visible
_everywhere_.

Namespace pollution, the problem of a lot of unrelated code having to
share a single set of global variable names, was mentioned in chapter
4, where the `Math` object was given as an example of an object that
acts sort of like a module by grouping a lot of math-related
functionality.

Though JavaScript provides no actual module construct yet, objects can
be used to create publicly accessible sub-namespaces, and functions
can be used to create an isolated, private namespace inside of a
module. Later in this chapter, I will demonstrate some techniques
that allow us to fake reasonably convenient, namespace-isolating
modules.

== Reuse ==

In a “flat” project, it is not apparent which parts of the code are
needed to use a particular function. If, in my program for spying on
my enemies, I wrote a function for reading configuration files, and
now I want to use that function again in another project, I must go
and copy out the part of the old program that look like they are
relevant to the functionality that I need, and paste them into my new
program. Then, if I find a mistake in that code, I will fix it in the
program that I was working with at the time, and forget to also fix it
in the other program.

Once you have lots of such shared, duplicated pieces of code, you will
find yourself wasting a lot of time and energy on moving them around
and keeping them up to date.

When pieces of functionality that stand on their own are put into
separate files and modules, they can be easily kept track of, updated
when a new version is created, or even shared, by having the various
pieces of code that want to use them load the same actual file.

This idea gets even more powerful when the relations between
modules—which other modules each module depends on—are explicitly
stated. You can then automate the process of installing and upgrading
external modules.

And, taking this even further, imagine an online service that tracks
and distributes hundreds of thousands of such modules, allowing you to
search for the functionality you need, and, once you find it, set up
your project to automatically download it.

(((NPM)))This service exists. It is called _NPM_ (http://npmjs.org[`npmjs.org`]).
NPM consists of an online database of modules, and a tool for
downloading and upgrading the modules your program depends on. It grew
out of node.js, the browser-less JavaScript environment discussed in
chapter FIXME, but can also be useful when programming for the browser.

== Decoupling ==

Another important role of modules is isolating pieces of code from
each other, in the same way that the object interfaces from Chapter 6
do. A well-designed module will provide an interface for external code
to use, and as the module is further worked on (bugs are fixed,
functionality is added) the existing interface stays stable, so that
other modules can use a new, improved version without any changes to
themselves.

Note that a stable interface does not mean no new elements are added.
It just means that the existing elements aren't removed or their
meaning changed.

Building a module interface that allows the module to grow without
breaking the old interface means finding a good trade-off between
exposing as little internal concepts as possible to the outside world,
and yet making the “language” that the interface exposes powerful and
flexible enough to be applicable in a wide range of situations.

For interfaces that expose a single, focused concept, like a
configuration file reader, this comes naturally. For others, like a
text editor component, where external code needs access to lots of
different concepts, it requires careful design.

== Functions as namespaces ==

Functions are the only construct in JavaScript that creates a new
scope. So if we want our modules to have their own scope, we will have
to base them on functions somehow.

Consider this trivial module for associating names with the
day-of-the-week numbers returned by a date object's `getDay` method:

[source,javascript]
----
var names = ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday",
             "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"];
function dayName(number) {
  return names[number];
}

console.log(dayName(1));
// → Monday
----

The `dayName` function is part of its interface, but the `names`
variable is not. We would prefer _not_ to spill it into the global
scope.

We can do this:

[source,javascript]
----
var dayName = function() {
  var names = ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday",
               "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"];
  return function(number) {
    return names[number];
  };
}();

console.log(dayName(3));
// → Wednesday
----

Now `names` is a local variable in an (anonymous) function. This
function is created and immediately called, and its return value (the
actual `dayName` function) is stored in a variable. We could have
pages and pages of code in this function, creating a hundred local
variables. They would all be internal to our module, visible to the
module itself, but not to outside code.

A similar pattern is used to isolate code from the outside world
entirely. The module below just has some effect, but does not actually
provide any values for other modules to use.

[source,javascript]
----
(function() {
  function square(x) { return x * x; }
  var hundred = 100;

  console.log(square(hundred));
})();
// → 10000
----

This code simply outputs the square of one hundred (in the real world,
it could be a module that adds a method to some prototype, or sets up
some widget on a web page). It wraps its code in a function to, again,
prevent the variables it uses internally from sitting in the global
scope.

Why is the namespace function wrapped in a pair of parentheses? This
has to do with a quirk in JavaScript's syntax. If an _expression_
starts with the keyword `function`, it is a function expression.
However, if a _statement_ starts with that keyword, it is a function
declaration, which requires a name and cannot be immediately called.
Even though a statement may start with an expression, the second rule
takes precedence, and if the extra parentheses were left out in the
example above, it would produce a syntax error. You can think of them
as a trick to force the language to understand that we are writing an
expression.

== Objects as namespaces ==

Now imagine that the day-of-the-week module needs to provide not one,
but two functions, because we add a `dayNumber` function that goes
from a name to a number. We can't simply return the function anymore,
but must wrap the two functions in an object.

[source,javascript]
----
var weekDay = function() {
  var names = ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday",
               "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"];
  return {
    name: function(number) { return names[number]; },
    number: function(name) { return names.indexOf(name); }
  };
}();

console.log(weekDay.name(weekDay.number("Sunday")));
// → Sunday
----

For bigger modules, gathering all the _exported_ values into an object
at the end of the function becomes awkward, and often requires us to
repeat ourselves. This can be improved by declaring an object, usually
named `exports`, and adding properties to that whenever we are
defining something that needs to be exported. This object can then be
returned, or accepted as a parameter and stored somewhere by the code
outside the module.

[source,javascript]
----
(function(exports) {
  var names = ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday",
               "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"];

  exports.name = function(number) {
    return names[number];
  };
  exports.number = function(name) {
    return names.indexOf(name);
  };
})(window.weekDay = {});

console.log(weekDay.name(weekDay.number("Saturday")));
// → Saturday
----

== Detaching from the global scope ==

The above pattern is commonly used by JavaScript modules intended for
the browser. They will claim a single, known global name, and wrap
their code in a function in order to have their own private namespace.

There is still a problem when multiple modules happen to claim the
same name, or when you want, for whatever reason, to load two versions
of a module alongside each other.

With a little plumbing, we can create a system that allows modules to
directly ask for the interface objects of other modules they need
access to, without going through the global scope. This solves the
problems mentioned above, and has the added benefit of being explicit
about those dependencies, making it harder to accidentally use some
module without stating that you need it.

Our goal is a function `require` which, when given a module name, will
load that file (from disk or the web, depending on the platform
we are running on), and return the appropriate interface value.

For this we need at least two things. Firstly, we will imagine that we
have a function `readFile` (which is not present in standard
JavaScript), which returns the content of the file with the given
name. There are ways to access the web from JavaScript in the browser,
and to access the hard disk from other JavaScript platforms, but they
are more involved. For now, we just pretend we have this simple
function.

Secondly, we need to be able, when we have a string containing code
(as read from the file), to actually execute this code as a JavaScript
program.

== Evaluating data as code ==

There are several ways to take data (a string of code) and run it in
the context of the current program.

The most obvious is the special standard operator `eval`, which will
execute a string of code in the _current_ scope. That is usually a
rather bad idea, because it breaks some of the sane properties that
scopes normally have (being isolated from the outside world, most
notably).

[source,javascript]
----
function evalAndReturnX(code) {
  eval(code);
  return x;
}

console.log(evalAndReturnX("var x = 2"));
// → 2
----

A better way of converting data into program is to use the `Function`
constructor. This takes as arguments first a string containing a
comma-separated list of argument names, and then a string containing
the function's body.

[source,javascript]
----
var plusOne = new Function("n", "return n + 1;");
console.log(plusOne(4));
// → 5
----

This is precisely what we need—we can wrap the code for a module in a
function, with that function's scope becoming our module scope.

== Require ==

If the `new Function` constructor, used by our module loader, wraps
the code in a function anyway, we can omit the actual wrapping
namespace function from the files itself. We will also make `exports`
an argument to the module function, so that the module does not have
to declare it. That removes a lot of the superfluous noise from our
example module:

[source,javascript]
----
var names = ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday",
             "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"];

exports.name = function(number) {
  return names[number];
};
exports.number = function(name) {
  return names.indexOf(name);
};
----

The following is a very minimal implementation of `require`:

// test: wrap

[source,javascript]
----
function require(name) {
  var code = new Function("exports", readFile(name));
  var exports = {};
  code(exports);
  return exports;
}

console.log(require("weekDay").name(1));
// → Monday
----

When using this system, a module typically starts with a few variable
declarations that load the modules it depends on.

// test: no

[source,javascript]
----
var weekDay = require("weekDay");
var today = require("today");

console.log(weekDay.name(today.dayNumber()));
----

The simplistic implementation of `require` given above has several
problems. For one, it will load and run a module every time it is
`require`-d, so if several modules have the same dependency, or a
`require` call is put inside of a function that will be called
multiple times, time and energy will be wasted.

This can be solved by storing the modules that have already been
loaded in an object, and simply returning the existing value if they
are loaded again.

The second problem is that it is not possible for a module to directly
export a single value. For example, a module might want to only export
the constructor of the object type it defines. Right now, it can not
do that, because `require` always uses the `exports` object it creates
as the exported value.

The traditional solution for this is to provide another variable,
`module`, which is an object that has a property `exports`. This
property initially points at the empty object created by `require`,
but can be overwritten with another value in order to export something
else.

// test: wrap
// include_code

[source,javascript]
----
function require(name) {
  if (name in require.cache)
    return require.cache[name];

  var code = new Function("exports, module", readFile(name));
  var exports = {}, mod = {exports: exports};
  code(exports, mod);

  require.cache[name] = module.exports;
  return module.exports;
}
require.cache = Object.create(null);
----

We now have a module system that uses a single global variable
(`require`) to allow modules to find and use each other without going
through the global scope.

This style of module system is called _CommonJS Modules_, after the
pseudo-standard that first specified it. It is built into the node.js
system. Real implementations do a lot more than the example I showed.
Most importantly, they have a much more intelligent way of going from
a module name to an actual piece of code, allowing both relative paths
and “globally” registered module names.

== Slow-loading modules ==

Though it is possible to use the style above in JavaScript written for
the browser, it is somewhat involved. The reason for this is that
reading a file (module) from the web is a lot slower than reading it
from your hard disk. Browser JavaScript is required to behave in such
a way that, while a script is running, nothing else can happen to the
web site in which it runs. This means that if every require call would
go and load something from some far-away web server, the page would
freeze for a painfully long time during startup.

There are ways to work around this, for example by running another
program (such as _http://browserify.org[Browserify]_) on your program
in advance, which would gather all the dependencies by looking for
calls to `require`, and put everything together in a big file.

Another solution to wrap your module in a function, load the modules
it depends on in the background, and only run this function when all
its dependencies have been loaded. That is what the “__Asynchronous
Module Definition__” (AMD) style of module system does.

Our trivial program with dependencies, in AMD, would looks like this:

// test: no

[source,javascript]
----
define(["weekDay", "today"], function(weekDay, today) {
  console.log(weekDay.name(today.dayNumber()));
});
----

The `define` function is the central concept in this approach. It
takes first an array of module names, and then a function that takes
one argument for each dependency. It will load the dependencies (if
they haven't already been loaded) in the background, allowing the page
to continue working while it is waiting. Once all dependencies are
loaded, it will call the function it was given, with the interfaces of
those dependencies as arguments.

The modules that are loaded this way must themselves contain a call to
`define`. The value used as their interface is whatever was returned
by the function that is the second argument in this call. Here is the
`weekDay` module again.

[source,javascript]
----
define([], function() {
  var names = ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday",
               "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"];
  return {
    name: function(number) { return names[number]; },
    number: function(name) { return names.indexOf(name); }
  };
});
----

In order to show a simple implementation of `define`, let us pretend
we also have a `backgroundReadFile` function, which takes a
file name and a function, and will call the function with the content
of the file as soon as it has finished loading it.

// include_code

[source,javascript]
----
function define(depNames, moduleFunction) {
  var deps = [], myMod = define.currentModule;

  depNames.forEach(function(name) {
    if (name in define.cache) {
      var depMod = define.cache[name];
    } else {
      var depMod = {exports: null,
                    loaded: false,
                    onLoad: []};
      define.cache[name] = depMod;
      backgroundReadFile(name, function(code) {
        define.currentModule = depMod;
        new Function("", code)();
      });
    }
    deps.push(depMod);
    if (!depMod.loaded)
      depMod.onLoad.push(runIfDepsLoaded);
  });

  function runIfDepsLoaded() {
    if (!deps.every(function(m) { return m.loaded; }))
      return;

    var args = deps.map(function(m) { return m.exports; });
    var exports = moduleFunction.apply(null, args);
    if (myMod) {
      myMod.exports = exports;
      myMod.loaded = true;
      myMod.onLoad.every(function(f) { f(); });
    }
  }
  runIfDepsLoaded();
}
define.cache = Object.create(null);
----

This is a lot harder to follow than the `require` function. Its
execution does not follow a simple, predictable path. Instead,
multiple operations are set up to happen at some unspecified time in
the future (when modules finish loading), which obscures the way the
code executes.

The main problem this code deals with is gathering the interface
values for the module's dependencies. To track modules, and their
state, an object is created for each module that is loaded by
`define`. This object stores the module's exported value, a boolean
indicating whether the module has fully loaded already, and an array
of function to call when the module does finish loading.

A cache is used to prevent loading modules multiple time, just like we
did for `require`. When `define` is called, we first build up an
array of module objects that represent the dependencies of this
module. If the name of a dependency corresponds to a cached module, we
use the existing object. Otherwise, we create a new object (with
`loaded` set to `false`) and store that in the cache. We also start
loading the module, using the `backgroundReadFile` function. Once the
file has loaded, its content is run using the `Function` constructor.

It is assumed that this file also contains a (single) call to
`define`. The `define.currentModule` property is used to tell this
call about the module object that is currently being loaded, so that
we can update it once it finishes loading.

This is handled in the `runIfDepsLoaded` function, which is called
once immediately (in case no dependencies need to be loaded) and once
for every dependency that finishes loading. When all dependencies are
there, we call the `moduleFunction`, passing it the appropriate
exported values. If there is a current module object, the return value
from the function is stored in there, the object is marked as loaded,
and the functions in its `onLoad` array are called. This will notify
any modules that are waiting for this one that their dependency has
finished loading.

A real AMD implementation is, again, quite a lot more clever about
resolving module names to actual URLs, and generally more robust. The
_RequireJS_ (`http://requirejs.org`) project provides a popular
implementation of this style of module loader.

== Interface design ==

(((interface design)))Designing interfaces for modules and object
types is one of the subtler aspects of programming. Any non-trivial
piece functionality can be modeled in different ways. Finding a way
that works well requires insight and foresight.

The best way to learn the value of good interface design is to use
lots of interfaces, some good, some horrible. Experience will teach
you what works and what doesn't. Never assume that a painful interface
is “just the way it is”. Fix it, or wrap it in a new interface that
works better for you.

=== Predictability ===

(((convention)))If programmers can predict the way your interface
works, they (or you) won't get sidetracked as often by the need to
look up how to work with it. Thus, try to follow conventions (for
example when it comes to capitalization of names). When there is
another module or part of the standard JavaScript environment that
does something similar to what you are implementing, it might be a
good idea to make your interface resemble the existing interface. That
way, people who know the existing interface will feel right at home.

Another area where predictability is important is the actual
_behavior_ of your code. It can be tempting to pile up cleverness with
the justification that it makes the interface convenient to use. For
example, by accepting all kinds of different types and combinations of
arguments, and doing “the right thing” for all of them, or providing
dozens of specialized “convenience” functions that provide slightly
different flavors of your module's functionality. These might make
code that builds on your interface slightly shorter, but they will
also make it much harder for people to keep a mental model of the
module's behavior in their head.

=== Composability ===

(((composability)))In your interfaces, try to use the simplest data
structures that work and make functions do a single, clear
thing—whenever practical, make them pure functions (see Chapter 3).

For example, it is not uncommon for modules to provide their own
array-like collection objects, with their own interface for counting
and extracting elements. Such objects won't have `map` or `forEach`
methods, and any existing function that expects a real array won't be
able to work with them. This is an example of bad
__composability__—the module cannot be easily composed with other
code.

(((spell-check example)))Another example would be a module for
spell-checking text, which we might need when we want to write a text
editor. The spell-checker could be made to operate directly on
whichever complicated data structures the editor uses, and directly
call internal functions in the editor to have the user choose between
spelling suggestions. If we go that way, the module cannot be used
with any other programs. On the other hand, if we define the
spell-checking interface so that you can pass it a simple string and
it will return the position in the string where it found a possible
misspelling, along with an array of suggested corrections, then we
have an interface that could also be composed with other systems,
because strings and arrays are always available.

=== Layered interfaces ===

(((layering (of an interface))))When designing an interface for a
complex piece of functionality—say, sending email—you often run into
something of a dilemma. On the one hand, you do not want to overload
the user of your interface with details. They shouldn't have to study
your interface for 20 minutes before they can send an email. On the
other hand, you do not want to hide all the details either—when people
need to do complicated things with your module, that should also be
possible.

Often the solution is to provide two interfaces: a detailed
“low-level” one for complex situations and a simple “high-level” one
for routine use. The second one can usually be built very easily using
the tools provided by the first one. In the email module, the
high-level interface could just be a function that takes a message, a
sender address, and a receiver address, and sends the email. The
low-level interface would allow full control over email headers,
attachments, sending HTML mail, and so on.

== Summary ==

Modules provide such structure to bigger programs, by separating the
code into different files and namespaces. Giving these modules
well-defined interfaces makes it easier to use them, reuse them in
different contexts, and keep using them as the module itself evolves.

Though the JavaScript language itself is characteristically unhelpful
when it comes to modules, the flexible functions and objects it
provides make it possible to define rather nice module systems.
Function scopes can be used as internal namespaces for the module, and
objects can be used to store sets of exported values.

There are two popular, well-defined approaches to such modules. One is
called “CommonJS Modules”, and revolves around a `require` function
that fetches a module by name and returns its interface. The other is
called “AMD”, and uses an asynchronous `define` function that takes an
array of module names and a function, and, after loading the modules,
runs the function with their interfaces as arguments.

== Exercises ==

=== Month names ===

Write a simple module similar to the `weekDay` module, which can
convert month numbers (zero-based, as in the `Date` type) to names,
and names back to numbers. Give it its own namespace, since it will
need an internal array of month names, but use plain JavaScript,
without any module loader system.

ifdef::html_target[]

// test: no

[source,javascript]
----
// Your code here.

console.log(month.name(2));
// → March
console.log(month.number("November"));
// → 10
----
endif::html_target[]

!!solution!!

This follows the `weekDay` module almost exactly. An anonymous
function, called immediately, wraps the variable that holds the array
of names, along with the two functions that must be exported. The
functions are put in an object, and returned. The returned interface
object is stored in the `month` variable.

!!solution!!

=== Circular dependencies ===

A tricky subject in dependency management is circular dependencies,
where module A depends on B, and B also depends on A. Many module
systems simply forbid this. CommonJS allows a limited form of this,
where it works as long as the modules do not replace their default
`exports` object with another value, and only start accessing each
other's interface after they finish loading.

Can you think of a way in which support for this feature could be
implemented? Look back to the definition of `require`, and consider
what the could would have to do to allow this.

!!solution!!

The trick is to add the `exports` object created for a module to
`require`'s cache _before_ actually running the module. This means the
module will not yet have had a chance to override `module.exports`, so
we do not know whether it may want to export some other value. After
loading, the cache object is overridden with `module.exports`, which
may be a different value.

But if, in the course of loading the module, a second module is loaded
that asks for the first module, its default `exports` object, likely
still empty at this point, will be in the cache, and the second module
will receive a reference to it. If it doesn't try to do anything with
the object until the first module has finished loading, things will
work.

!!solution!!

=== A return to electronic life ===

Hoping that Chapter 7 is still somewhat fresh in your mind, think back
to the system designed in that chapter and come up with a separation
into modules of the code. To refresh your memory, these are the
functions and types defined in that chapter, in order of appearance.

----
Point
Grid
directions
randomElement
BouncingCritter
elementFromChar
World
charFromElement
Wall
View
directionNames
WallFollower
dirPlus
LifeLikeWorld
Plant
PlantEater
SmartPlantEater
Tiger
----

Do not exaggerate and create too many modules. A book that starts a
new chapter for every page would probably get on your nerves, if only
because of all the space wasted on titles. Similarly, having to open
ten files to read a tiny project isn't helpful. Aim for three to five
modules.

You can choose to have some functions become internal to their module,
and thus inaccessible to other modules.

There is no single correct solution here. Module organization is
largely a matter of taste.

!!solution!!

Here is what I came up with. I've put parentheses around internal
functions.

----
Module "grid"
  Point
  Grid
  directions

Module "world"
  (randomElement)
  (elementFromChar)
  (charFromElement)
  View
  World
  LifeLikeWorld
  directions [re-exported]

Module "simple_ecosystem"
  (randomElement) [duplicated]
  (directionNames)
  (dirPlus)
  Wall
  BouncingCritter
  WallFollower

Module "ecosystem"
  Wall [duplicated]
  Plant
  PlantEater
  SmartPlantEater
  Tiger
----

I have re-exported the `directions` array from the `grid` module from
`world`, so that modules built on that (the ecosystems) don't have to
know or worry about the existence of the `grid` module.

I also duplicated two generic and tiny helper values (`randomElement`
and `Wall`) since they are used as internal details in different
contexts, and do not belong in the interfaces for these modules.

!!solution!!