Top 10 JavaScript Links: Native JavaScript

JavaScript LogoThere are a ton of websites that offer information about JavaScript. Some are ok, some are good, some are great. These are the ten websites that I feel offer great information about JavaScript.

This list will change often.

Mozilla Developer Network

MDN JavaScript Home

MDN JavaScript Search

Mozilla describes themselves as: “…a proudly non-profit organization dedicated to keeping the power of the Web in people’s hands.” I believe it, and I believe in them. They have created a ton of helpful articles on JavaScript that are worth their weight in gold.


Sitepoint articles are always informative and well-written. It surprises me how actively this site is updated.


If interactive instruction is your thing, then Codecademy is a great place to dive-in. The interface is clean and the content is quite good.


Edited by Alex R. Young, with contributions from Ric Roberts, Rod Vagg, Alex Kessinger, Justin Knowlden and Oleg Podsechin. This blog is actively maintained and rich with interesting articles about advanced JavaScript topics and trends.

JavaScript is Sexy

An impressive collection of tutorials that touch on the most important core concepts of the JavaScript language.


It’s a bit odd how all of their JavaScript content is one one page. That said, it is a page jam-packed with solid content that addresses some of the most common JavaScript topics that web-developers often find confusing.

The coverage is somewhat brief, but overall well-done. The author is Russian and gave-up on the English version of this site because of his frustration with English. There is a link to the Russian version of the site, which offers a great deal of content and is actively updated. If you use Google Chrome, then you can translate these pages on the fly.

Impressive Webs

If you are passionate about JavaScript, this is an excellent resource. There is a nice balance of core JavaScript cocepts and articles about advanced topics.


Founded by David Kent and Leland Richardson, this site is an aggregation of technology content. This is a quality resource for intermediate-to-advanced JavaScript articles and tutorials. – fresh links for developers

Similar to, this site offers links to technology-specific content around the web. Their JavaScript links refer to some very good articles.

JavaScript Weekly Archives

The main goal is to sign-up for the weekly email newsletter. But, you can also just browse past issues. Either way, is a great resource for JavaScript enthusiasts.

JavaScript Closures – The Absolute Basics: Getters and Setters

The next step in mastering JavaScript closures is being able to “get” or “set” a private variable

In Part I of this series: JavaScript Closures – The Absolute Basics, I discussed wrapping one function with another, which produces a closure. When that returned function is assigned to a variable, as long as that variable is alive, it (a function) has access to the context of the function that wraps it. This means that the outer (or “wrapping”) function can contain a private member, but the wrapped function has access to it. In that post, the example code consisted of a function that returned the private member.

Let’s take this one step further: we want to be able to “get” and “set” that private member in real time. Consider the following code:

Example # 1

Here is the JsFiddle link:

In example # 1, we first create a global variable named “drink” that is set equal to “wine”. Why we did this will become apparent in a moment. next we have a variable named “foo”, which is set equal to an anonymous function. Here is where the “closure” stuff comes in: That anonymous function (i.e. “foo”) returns an object literal. That object literal contains two properties: “getDrink” and “seDrink”. Both are anonymous functions.

After the declaration of the anonymous function “foo”, we create a variable named “bar” that is equal to the return value of “foo” (i.e. we execute “foo”, and set the variable “bar” equal to that). Because “foo” returns an object literal, it is almost as if we simply did this:

But that does not completely represent what is going on here. Although “bar” is in-fact equal to an object literal that has two anonymous functions as members, that object literal was returned by a function (and that is a critical detail). Because that object literal was returned by a function, the two anonymous functions that are members of the object literal have access to the function that returned them. Because they will execute in the context of “foo”, they have access to the private scope of “foo”.

Ok, so what does this all mean?

Remember when we created a global variable named “drink”, and set it equal to “wine”. Well, in example # 1, when say: “console.log( drink )”, and the output is “wine”, that is because in the global context, “drink” equals “wine”. But there is another variable named “drink” in-play. That variable is in the private scope of “foo” and it is set equal to “beer”.

Hang in there, we are getting to the good stuff now

In example # 1, when we say: “console.log( bar.getDrink() )” and the output is “beer”, that is because “getDrink()” has access to the private scope of “foo”, and in the private scope of “foo”, “drink” is equal to “beer”. Next, when we say: “console.log( bar.setDrink(“juice”) )”, we are mutating (i.e. changing) the value of the variable “drink” that exists in the private context of “foo”. This is because:

  • “bar” was set equal to the value of whatever “foo” returned
  • “foo” returned an object literal
  • The object literal that “foo” returned contains a member: “setDrink()”
  • “setDrink()” has access to the variable “drink” which is in the private scope of “foo”
  • We change that private variable “drink” to “juice” using “bar.setDrink()”

If you run the jsfiddle link for example # 1, you will see this all in action (make sure you have your JavaScript console open). Once the code has run, type the following in your JavaScript console: “console.log( bar.getDrink() )” the return value will be “juice”.


There is no such thing as a wasted moment when it comes to understanding closures in JavaScript. This is a powerful feature of the language. In this post, we discussed getting and setting the value of a variable that exists in the private scope of a function that returned an object literal. Stay tuned for more to come on this topic which is at times seemingly complex, but more than worth the effort and an important tool in your JavaScript belt.

JavaScript Closures – The Absolute Basics

Demystifying this topic is one of the most important steps towards truly understanding the JavaScript language

It is a little difficult to get your head around JavaScript closures without a basic understanding of scope. I will not attempt to tackle that subject in any kind of detail here. But let’s at least consider this thought: JavaScript functions always (always) retain a reference to any variables that are in-scope when they are defined.

I know that sounds a little nerdy, but it is important to remember. if you are not quite sure what that means, take a little time to explore the concept of scope in JavaScript, then come back to revisit the topic of closures.

Assuming you are comfortable with the concept of scope, think about a function that is defined in the global scope. There is not much going on there because the global scope is the outer-most scope. But what about when a function is defined inside another function? That is where the power of closures starts to take place. When a function is defined within another function, it has access to any variables that are in-scope at the time of definition.

Example # 1


Here is the JsFiddle link:

In example # 1, we first creatre a global variable named “drink” and set it equal to “wine”. Next we have a function “foo”, that returns another function. When we say: ‘var bar = foo()’, we are assigning the value that foo returns to bar.

JavaScript functions always (always) retain a reference to any variables that are in-scope when they are defined.

Since foo returns a function, then bar is now a function. Because the function that has been assigned to bar is defined inside of foo, it has access to foo. This means that in our case, bar returns a private variable that lives inside of foo. That variable inside of foo named “drink”, has been set to “beer”. So, in the global context, “drink” equals “wine” and in the context of foo, “drink” equals “beer”.

The end result is that when we pass the variable “drink” to the console, it is “wine”, because in the global scope, “drink” is equal to “wine”. But when we pass “bar()” to the console, we get “beer”. That is because “bar()” is a function, it returns a variable named “drink” and because “Bar()” was defined inside of foo, it returns the first “drink” it finds, which is private to “foo()” and it is equal to “beer”.

At the most basic level, this is how closures work.


There is much more to talk about with regards to JavaScript closures. But for those of you scratching your heads, just trying to get the basics down, I hope this was helpful.

A video tutorial about JavaScript Closures

Helpful links for getting started with JavaScript Closures

Iterating Over a jQuery Collection with the .each() Method

jQuery Logo

jQuery makes it super easy to get a reference to a collection of DOM elements. The .each() method allows you to execute a function against each one of the elements in the collection.

So you have a bunch of elements in the page. Maybe that bunch is “every <a> tag” or “every <li> inside of the <ul> with the class “sales”, or each <div> element that is a child of <div class=”members”>.

Here is how you would create a reference to each of those collections

jQuery will return a collection with one or more members. But how do you iterate over that collection and “do something” to each one? You can accomplish this by chaining the .each() method to the return value, and of course, pass a callback to that method.

Here is the basic syntax:

For an example, we will create a click-event handler for each <li> inside of a <ul>. Here is the markup we will work with:

With that markup in mind, consider the following code:

Example # 1

In this example, our logic is the following:

  • For each <li> that is inside of a <ul>, add a click event handler
  • In the click-event handler, we say “If you click me, make my text red”.

Example # 2

In example # 2, we change the logic a bit so that only an <li> with the class “workday” is returned in the collection, which means that the “saturday” and “sunday” <li> elements do have a click event handler assigned.

Here is the JsFiddle link for this example:  Simply remove the .workday class from the CSS selector to see example # 1 work.


The jQuery .each() method is used to iterate over the members of a jQuery collection. There is definitely more fun stuff that can be done with this method, but this is a very basic overview of what the method does and how to use it.

Important Note: Try not to confuse this with the jQuery.each() method. That is a similar concept, but more of a general-purpose iteration method that is a static method call to the jQuery object, not a method of a jQuery collection.

A Video Tutorial About the jQuery .each() method

Helpful links for the jQuery .each() method

How to Create a CSS Cache Buster Using JavaScript

Use the Date() constructor to create a unique query string; ensure each GET request is not cached

The other day, I was working with a customer whose iPad app was consuming an HTML page.
I was making changes to the CSS, yet was not seeing them in the iPad app. I kept adding a new query string to the URL of the CSS file, which forced the iPad app to download the updated CSS file. I grew a little tired of changing the URL to the CSS element, so I wrote a little cache buster script, and that was the end of the fiddling around.

This is very easy to do. Let’s look at an example.

Example # 1

In this example, we instantiate the Date() constructor, and get a reference to the time. Since this number is incremented by one, it will always be unique. We then create a new element, and set the required attributes: “rel”, “type” and “href”. The href has a query string that includes a reference to the time, so we have a GET request that is essentially different from the last one we made, and the next one we make will be different from this one, and so on.

Run this in your JavaScript console, and as long as you have a file name “style.css” in the same directory as your HTML file, you will see a new element appended to the <head> element. You can, of course, take the same approach with any resource that requires a web address such as a JavaScript file, an image, and so on.

Cache busting can ensure that often-changing files such as CSS and JavaScript always get downloaded by the client’s browser (i.e. never cached). It’s a simple technique that can keep you from pulling your hair out.

Helpful Links for the subjet of cache busting

Creating an HTML Option Element Using the JavaScript Option() Constructor

The little-known JavaScript Option() constructor allows you to avoid the verbose syntax of creating DOM elements

We all love jQuery. Among the many awesome qualities of this library is the ability to easily create DOM elements and place them in the document without the normally verbose syntax of native JavaScript.

There is a little-known feature of JavaScript that allows you to create option elements with fairly minimal effort. This feature is the Option() constructor. The syntax is simple:

  1. Get a reference to a form element
  2. Instantiate the constructor and associate the returned object with the form element
  3. During instantiation, pass-in the following arguments: 1) the text shown in the page [string], 2) the value of the control [string], 3) if it is the default selection [true/false] and if it is selected [true/false]

Example # 1


In example # 1, we have a simple form that includes a select control. In the markup there are three options: “Monday”, “Tuesday” and “Wednesday”. When the JavaScript runs, the following actions take place:

  1. We get a reference to the select controls (“w”)
  2. We delete all of the option elements (w.length = 0)
  3. We create an array of objects each with two properties (“d”)
  4. We loop through the array and for each array element, dynamically create a new select element, using the object’s “text” and “val” properties. In each case the last two arguments: “false”,”false” mean that this new element will not be the default, nor will it be selected.

And that’s it!


The little-known Option() constructor can be used to create new HTML option elements. Depending on how you choose to approach this, you can write some pretty efficient code that side-steps the normally verbose syntax of document.createTextNode(), document.createElement(), and document.appendChild() methods.

Helpful Links for the JavaScript Option() constructor

Associative Arrays in JavaScript

You may be finding conflicting information about associative arrays in JavaScript. Well, the answer is quite simple…. and then things start to get a little odd

If you are frustrated because you have been getting different answers on this subject, I”ve got good news and bad news. The good news is, the answer is simple: associative arrays are not supported in JavaScript. Arrays in JavaScript are index-based. Plain and simple, end of conversation. The bad new is, it’s not quite the end of the conversation. The reason for this is because the following code actually works just fine:


[insert shrugged shoulders here]  “…ok Kevin, so what’s the problem ?”

The problem is: you do not have an array with five elements. You have an array with three elements, and two properties.


…yup, this is the part where JavaScript array objects behave in an unexpected way. But hang in there, it’s actually kind of cool once you understand what is happening.

Arrays are Objects

Arrays in JavaScript are numerically indexed: each array element’s “key” is its numeric index. In a way, each element is anonymous. This is because when you use methods of the Array object such as array.shift() or array.unshift(), each element’s index changes. So, after using array.shift(), array element # 2 becomes array element # 1, and so on. (array.pop() and array.push() may change the length of the array, but they don’t change the existing array element’s index numbers because you are dealing with the end of the array.) All this is to say that in a JavaScript array, each element can only be identified by an index, which will always be a number, and you always have to assume that this number can change, which means that the whole “key/vavlue” idea is out the window (i.e. no associative arrays in JavaScript. Sorry.).

…OK smarty-pants, if you can’t have associative arrays in JavaScript, why does this work: arr[“drink”] = “beer” ?

Glad you asked. This is because in JavaScript, arrays inherit from Object(). Whether you use an array literal or instantiate the array constructor, you are creating an object, plain and simple. Consider the following:

Example # 1

In example # 1, we create an array in three different ways. The first line creates a new array with three elements, but they are all undefined. The second line creates a new array, but it is empty, with no elements (this is an array literal). The third line creates an array literal, but we provide values for the elements as we define the array. In all three cases, you are creating an instance of the Array() constructor, which inherits from Object(). So, these are ALL objects.

Example # 2:


In example # 2, we create an array literal, but it is empty. (var arr = []; works just fine, but it is an empty array.) When we check the length property and try to inspect the object with console.dir(arr), we can clearly see that it is empty. Then we add elements to the array, and add named properties (e.g. arr[“drink”] = “beer”). But when checking the array’s length property, and inspecting the object, we can see that the actual “array” part of the array still has only three elements (i.e. “music” and “drink” are NOT elements in the array), and that “music” and “drink” are properties of the array object.

Arrays are Objects with their own special “array-ish” properties

What is happening, is that the Array() constructor returns an instance object that has some special members that other objects such as Function() and Date() do not. So when your code says:  arr[“drink”] = “beer” you are simply adding a new property to your object, which happens to be an array, and that property has a name of “drink”, and you have assigned the value of “beer” to it. You could have easily assigned a number, an object, an anonymous function, or one of JavaScript’s other data types. This property “drink” has no connection to the elements in the array. It does not increase the value of the array’s “length” property, and it cannot be accessed via the array-ish methods such as pop() or shift().

Let’s see what happens when we take advantage of this object’s “array-ness.”

Example # 3:

OK, so things are gettin’ pretty weird, right? Yep, but it’s all cool stuff, and at the end of the day, it’s no big deal. It just illustrates they way objects work in JavaScript. Let’s run it down:

  • First, we use the JavaScrpt Array() object’s push() method to dynamically add an element to the array. It just so happens that this new element is an object literal, with two properties. Its index becomes 3.
  • Next, we use the same push() method to dynamically add another element to the array. This new element is an anonymous function. Its index becomes 4.
  • Next, we create a new property for our array called “testMe” This new property happens to be an anonymous function. It has NO index, because it is NOT an element in the array, just a new property that we have added.
  • Next, we use the console to check the array’s length property, which is now “5”, and we inspect it.
  •  Dont’ forget it is an array, but it is also sill an object; Array() inherits from Object(). When inspecting the object, we see that our two uses of push() did, in fact, add two new elements to the array; one is an object, the other is an anonymous function. We also have “testMe”, wich is a new property of arr.
Ok, so what happens if we attempt to access the two functions that we added? Oh, they will run just fine, but remember: one is an element in the array, the other is a property of the arr object. So we access them differently:

Example # 4:

The output for example # 4 would be:

In each case, we are simply executing a function. It’s just that in the first case, that function is an element in the “arr” array. So, we have to access it using its index, which happens to be “4”. This can get tricky fast, and care should be taken in doing this kind of thing, but just to illustrate a point: array elements in JavaScript can be of any data type. In the second case, we access the function by its name “testMe”, because it is a PROPERTY of the array, not an element. Much easier, and there are no issues, because “testMe” will always be “testMe”, so it’s easy to access.


This is all pretty overboard. I mean, don’t we usually want this: var arr = [“mon”,”tues”,”wed”] ? Well, yes. Most of the time we do. But the point of this post is two-fold:

  1. JavaScript does NOT support associative arrays. Period.
  2. Arrays are objects, so properties can be added any time. Those properties can be any data type.

In JavaScript, arrays are best used as arrays, i.e., numerically indexed lists. The great thing is that those elements in the array can be of any data type. Index # 0 can be a string, # 1 can be an object, # 2 can be an anonymous function, and # 3 can be another array. But once you start doing things like this: arr[“drink”] = “beer”, you are swimming in somewhat dangerous waters. Unless you really know what you are doing, you will get odd behavior because arr[“drink”] is NOT a numerically indexed “member” of the array (it is not an array “element”), and does NOT have the relation to arr[0] and arr[1] that you may think it does. As soon as you start doing things like: arr[“drink”] = “beer”, it is time to consider putting this key-value pair in an object literal. You don’t have to, but it’s a better way to manage your data, and the approach leverages JavaScript’s strengths, instead of wrestling with the somewhat odd nature of it’s underlying architecture.

P.S.: If you really wanna see some odd JavaScript array behavior, try this:

The strange output of this one is for another discussion : – )

A video tutorial about associative arrays in JavaScript

Helpful links for associative arrays in JavaScript

How to Use the jQuery replaceWith Method

When you need to completely remove an element and put another in its place

One of the fun things about jQuery is learning about a method that introduces you to a DOM manipulation scenario you may not otherwise have thought of. The replaceWith() method allows you to chop out one piece of the page and replace it with another. The details of either are not important. You simply specify the original section of the DOM as well as the new chunk, and poof! Done.

Example # 1



In example # 1, we have attached an event handler to the element with the id: “foo”. When clicked, that element is removed from the page, and replaced with a piece of markup defined in a string. Yes, it’s that easy, and there are certainly more interesting things you can do with this jQuery method.


Replacing one section of the page with another piece of markup is quite easy with the jQuery replaceWith() method. The syntax is very straight-forward and if you are already familiar with jQuery, there are quite a few possibilities.

Helpful links for the jQuery replaceWith method