不同。如果对象中键的顺序不重要，我不需要知道所述对象的原型。使用总是有用的。

const object = {};
JSON.stringify(object) === "{}" will pass but {} === "{}" will not

是的，另一个答案……

Object.prototype.equals = function (object) { if (this.constructor !== object.constructor) return false; if (Object.keys(this).length !== Object.keys(object).length) return false; var obk; for (obk in object) { if (this[obk] !== object[obk]) return false; } return true; } var aaa = JSON.parse('{"name":"mike","tel":"1324356584"}'); var bbb = JSON.parse('{"tel":"1324356584","name":"mike"}'); var ccc = JSON.parse('{"name":"mike","tel":"584"}'); var ddd = JSON.parse('{"name":"mike","tel":"1324356584", "work":"nope"}'); $("#ab").text(aaa.equals(bbb)); $("#ba").text(bbb.equals(aaa)); $("#bc").text(bbb.equals(ccc)); $("#ad").text(aaa.equals(ddd)); <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script> aaa equals bbb? <span id="ab"></span> <br/> bbb equals aaa? <span id="ba"></span> <br/> bbb equals ccc? <span id="bc"></span> <br/> aaa equals ddd? <span id="ad"></span>

短功能deepEqual实现:

function deepEqual(x, y) {
  return (x && y && typeof x === 'object' && typeof y === 'object') ?
    (Object.keys(x).length === Object.keys(y).length) &&
      Object.keys(x).reduce(function(isEqual, key) {
        return isEqual && deepEqual(x[key], y[key]);
      }, true) : (x === y);
}

编辑:版本2，使用jib的建议和ES6的箭头函数:

function deepEqual(x, y) {
  const ok = Object.keys, tx = typeof x, ty = typeof y;
  return x && y && tx === 'object' && tx === ty ? (
    ok(x).length === ok(y).length &&
      ok(x).every(key => deepEqual(x[key], y[key]))
  ) : (x === y);
}

我使用这个可比函数来生成JSON可比的对象副本:

Var可比= o => (typeof o != '对象' || !o)?o: 种(o) .sort()。减少((c键)= > (c[主要]=可比(o(例子)),c), {}); / /演示: var = {1, c: 4 b:[2、3],d: {e:“5”,f:零}}; var b = {b:[2、3],c: 4 d: {f: null, e:“5”},答:1}; console.log (JSON.stringify(可比(a))); console.log (JSON.stringify(可比(b))); console.log(JSON.stringify(comparable(a)) == JSON.stringify(comparable(b))); < div id = " div " > < / div >

在测试中很方便(大多数测试框架都有一个is函数)。如。

is(JSON.stringify(comparable(x)), JSON.stringify(comparable(y)), 'x must match y');

如果捕捉到差异，则记录字符串，使差异可见:

x must match y
got      {"a":1,"b":{"0":2,"1":3},"c":7,"d":{"e":"5","f":null}},
expected {"a":1,"b":{"0":2,"1":3},"c":4,"d":{"e":"5","f":null}}.

我对这个函数做如下假设:

你控制你比较的对象，你只有基本的值(例如。而不是嵌套的对象、函数等)。 您的浏览器支持Object.keys。

这应该被视为一个简单策略的示范。

/**
 * Checks the equality of two objects that contain primitive values. (ie. no nested objects, functions, etc.)
 * @param {Object} object1
 * @param {Object} object2
 * @param {Boolean} [order_matters] Affects the return value of unordered objects. (ex. {a:1, b:2} and {b:2, a:1}).
 * @returns {Boolean}
 */
function isEqual( object1, object2, order_matters ) {
    var keys1 = Object.keys(object1),
        keys2 = Object.keys(object2),
        i, key;

    // Test 1: Same number of elements
    if( keys1.length != keys2.length ) {
        return false;
    }

    // If order doesn't matter isEqual({a:2, b:1}, {b:1, a:2}) should return true.
    // keys1 = Object.keys({a:2, b:1}) = ["a","b"];
    // keys2 = Object.keys({b:1, a:2}) = ["b","a"];
    // This is why we are sorting keys1 and keys2.
    if( !order_matters ) {
        keys1.sort();
        keys2.sort();
    }

    // Test 2: Same keys
    for( i = 0; i < keys1.length; i++ ) {
        if( keys1[i] != keys2[i] ) {
            return false;
        }
    }

    // Test 3: Values
    for( i = 0; i < keys1.length; i++ ) {
        key = keys1[i];
        if( object1[key] != object2[key] ) {
            return false;
        }
    }

    return true;
}

这取决于你对平等的定义。因此，作为类的开发人员，要由您来定义它们的相等性。

有时会使用一种情况，如果两个实例指向内存中的相同位置，则认为它们是“相等的”，但这并不总是您想要的。例如，如果我有一个Person类，如果两个Person对象具有相同的Last Name、First Name和Social Security Number(即使它们指向内存中的不同位置)，我可能会认为它们是“相等的”。

另一方面，我们不能简单地说两个对象是相等的，如果它们的每个成员的值都相同，因为，有时，你并不想这样。换句话说，对于每个类，由类开发人员定义组成对象“标识”的成员并开发适当的相等操作符(通过重载==操作符或Equals方法)。

Saying that two objects are equal if they have the same hash is one way out. However you then have to wonder how the hash is calculated for each instance. Going back to the Person example above, we could use this system if the hash was calculated by looking at the values of the First Name, Last Name, and Social Security Number fields. On top of that, we are then relying on the quality of the hashing method (that's a huge topic on its own, but suffice it to say that not all hashes are created equal, and bad hashing methods can lead to more collisions, which in this case would return false matches).