Daniel Earwicker Chief Software Architect
FISCAL Technologies Ltd

TypeScript - What's up with this?

TYPESCRIPT 2017-01-01

JavaScript's this keyword is horrible. The value it assumes inside a function depends on precisely how the function is called:

// node has 'global', browsers don't
if (typeof global === "undefined") {
    window.global = window;

function f() { 
    console.log(this === o, this === global, this === undefined);

const o = { f };


const f2 = o.f;

This prints the following:

false true false
true false false
true false false
false true false

Unless you prefix it with "use strict"; which gives:

false false true
true false false
true false false
false false true

Clearly the designers of strict mode felt there was a problem with this referring to the global object sometimes, and I'd have to agree with them. At least when it's undefined you have a chance of spotting a problem!

The pain here is that a function is written to assume something about this. To put it in TypeScript terms, the type signature of a method (i.e. a function designed to be called on an object) is fundamentally different from a free function.

TypeScript initially punted on this problem entirely. The type of f in the above example is () => void. But if f's body assumes this is some object, then o.f as a whole might be () => void whereas f on its own is definitely not. A free-standing f, while implemented by the JS runtime as a "function" object, is not yet a function. It needs to be bound to an object. This can be done by calling bind on it, or by assigning it as the property of a suitable object.

Even more confusingly, the statement const f2 = o.f; copies the value of an expression of type () => void into a variable that, by itself, is not () => void! This is just how JavaScript works.

There is a way of writing JavaScript (and TypeScript) that eliminates this problem: don't use this. Create objects as literals, without prototypes:

function vector(x: number, y: number) {
    return {
        get x() { return x; },
        get y() { return y; },
        length() { return Math.sqrt(x*x + y*y); }

For objects with large numbers of properties, created in large numbers, this theoretically is wasteful. It might also defeat optimisations in JS runtimes. In any case, classes are one of the "cool" (?) features in modern JS and TypeScript, so unfortunately they are probably widely used, and because they define methods on the prototype they depend on this.

This means that a simple demo of classes in TypeScript has a trap door waiting in it:

class Vector {
    constructor(public x: number, public y: number) {}

    length() {
        return Math.sqrt(this.x*this.x + this.y*this.y);

const v = new Vector(3, 4);

console.log(v.length()); // Prints: 5

const l = v.length;

console.log(l()); // Runtime error: Cannot read property 'x' of undefined

The compiler finds no type error in that example, because v.length has the type () => number. To a C# coder it looks fine (in C# the expression v.length automatically does the equivalent of v.length.bind(v)).

A separate problem is that the type of this in a free function is any. This is the case even if --noImplicitAny is specified!

But TypeScript continues to advance rapidly. We now have --noImplicitThis to add to the growing list of "super strict mode" compiler switches, under which the use of this in a free function will cause a type error.

    "noImplicitAny": true,
    "noImplicitThis": true,
    "noImplicitReturns": true,
    "strictNullChecks": true,
    "noFallthroughCasesInSwitch": true,
    "noUnusedLocals": true,
    "noUnusedParameters": true

More excitingly, we can say this:

interface I {
    f(this: I): void;

function f(this: I) { 
    console.log(this === o, this === undefined);

const o = { f }; // of type I

Now, just as we'd want, the type of f ensure it is not callable by itself:

f(); // The 'this' context of type 'void' is not assignable to method's 'this' of type 'I'.

It can only be called when preceded correctly by an object that conforms to I:

o.f(); // All good 

So we can fix our class example:

class Vector {
    constructor(public x: number, public y: number) {}

    length(this: this) {
        return Math.sqrt(this.x*this.x + this.y*this.y);

It now gives a compile-time error when we try to call through a free copy of v.length.

But this seems a bit strange. As length is a method of Vector, why not assume that it requires this to be the enclosing class type? Why require it to be explicitly stated?

The original plan was to add a flag --strictThis that would have made that exact assumption. It would also have applied a neat rule-of-thumb to interface declarations:

interface I {
  f: (n: number) => number; // this: void
  m(n: number): number; // this: this

In other words, if the functions available in the interface are fully bound and don't require this, declare them as a property of a function type, rather than a method.

But that change would have implied potentially rewriting a lot of the type definition files on DefinitelyTyped, so they would be helpful to anyone using the --strictThis flag (i.e. to reduce their tendency to break in existing code).

And would this actually block all type holes? Suppose anything with a length method is described as Measurable:

interface Measurable {
    length(this: this): number;

I've explicitly typed this to simulate what --strictThis would have assumed. Would our Vector class be compatible with Measurable? Yes (this is true in TS 2.1 anyway, and how else would such an interface be useful?)

But that means we have a type hole:

const v: Measurable = new Vector(3, 4);
const m = { length: v.length };
console.log(m.length()); // Prints: NaN

v is a Vector, which means it is also a Measurable, so we declare that to be its type. But if we treat it as a Measurable then we're saying that its length method could be called on any Measurable.

For Vector's version of length to work, this must be something that has x and y properties. It can't be just anything that has a length method. When I create m I satisfy the interface Measurable, but that's not enough to satisfy Vector#length.

Fundamentally, the implementer of an interface has different requirements to the caller. The caller wants the length, the implementer wants the information from which the length can be calculated. We can't fix it with:

interface Measurable {
    length(this: Vector): number;

because now it can't be usefully implemented by anything else. Okay, so maybe an interface method shouldn't have type this: this, but instead should have a special type that makes it illegal to do anything with it except call it. It would not be possible to read its value.

But for now these are open questions. TypeScript's usefulness isn't harmed by any of this. Absolute soundness, as if it was a Platonic ideal of which languages choose to implement some portion, like setting a dial somewhere between 0% (JavaScript) and 100% (Java), is a myth.

In reality type systems are tastefully chosen collections of composable features for describing and checking facts about code. New features may be invented at any time, based on widespread usage patterns. So a type system is never "complete", though there may be a kind of truce where users learn to stick to patterns that the type system can describe. TypeScript is unlikely to have that luxury because it aims to describe patterns being actively invented by JavaScript users.

As TypeScript grows in power, gaining such features, it becomes more capable of describing and checking a wider variety of patterns, but also harder to learn. It's a trade off, like everything else.

Time reversible events 2023-04-07
Language Smackdown: Java vs. C# 2023-03-07
Domesday '86 Reloaded (Reloaded) 2021-02-07
The Blob Lottery 2020-09-27
Abstraction is a Thing 2020-03-07
Unfortunate Bifurcations 2019-11-24
Two Cheers for SQL 2019-08-26
Factory Injection in C# 2019-07-02
Hangfire - A Tale of Several Queues 2019-05-24
How Does Auth work? 2018-11-24
From Ember to React, Part 2: Baby, Bathwater, Routing, etc. 2018-03-18
From Ember to React, Part 1: Why Not Ember? 2017-11-07
json-mobx - Like React, but for Data (Part 2) 2017-02-15
Redux in Pieces 2017-01-28
Box 'em! - Property references for TypeScript 2017-01-11
TypeScript - What's up with this? 2017-01-01
MobX - Like React, but for Data 2016-12-28
Eventless - XAML Flavoured 2016-12-24
Immuto - Epilogue 2016-12-20
Immuto - Radical Unification 2016-09-22
Immuto - Working with React (An Example) 2016-09-16
Immuto - Strongly Typed Redux Composition 2016-09-11
TypeScript - What is a class? 2016-09-11
TypeScript and runtime typing - EPISODE II 2016-09-10
TypeScript and runtime typing 2016-09-04
What's good about Redux 2016-07-24
TypeScript multicast functions 2016-03-13
Introducing doop 2016-03-08
TypeScript is not really a superset of JavaScript and that is a Good Thing 2015-07-11
A new kind of managed lvalue pointer 2014-04-27
Using pointer syntax as a shorthand for IEnumerable 2014-04-26
Adding crazily powerful operator overloading to C# 6 2014-04-23
Introducing Carota 2013-11-04
Want to comment on anything? Create an issue!