使用this而不是prototype的最终问题是，当重写方法时，基类的构造函数仍将引用重写的方法。考虑一下：

BaseClass = function() {
    var text = null;

    this.setText = function(value) {
        text = value + " BaseClass!";
    };

    this.getText = function() {
        return text;
    };

    this.setText("Hello"); // This always calls BaseClass.setText()
};

SubClass = function() {
    // setText is not overridden yet,
    // so the constructor calls the superclass' method
    BaseClass.call(this);

    // Keeping a reference to the superclass' method
    var super_setText = this.setText;
    // Overriding
    this.setText = function(value) {
        super_setText.call(this, "SubClass says: " + value);
    };
};
SubClass.prototype = new BaseClass();

var subClass = new SubClass();
console.log(subClass.getText()); // Hello BaseClass!

subClass.setText("Hello"); // setText is already overridden
console.log(subClass.getText()); // SubClass says: Hello BaseClass!

对比：

BaseClass = function() {
    this.setText("Hello"); // This calls the overridden method
};

BaseClass.prototype.setText = function(value) {
    this.text = value + " BaseClass!";
};

BaseClass.prototype.getText = function() {
    return this.text;
};

SubClass = function() {
    // setText is already overridden, so this works as expected
    BaseClass.call(this);
};
SubClass.prototype = new BaseClass();

SubClass.prototype.setText = function(value) {
    BaseClass.prototype.setText.call(this, "SubClass says: " + value);
};

var subClass = new SubClass();
console.log(subClass.getText()); // SubClass says: Hello BaseClass!

如果你认为这不是一个问题，那么这取决于你是否能在没有私人变量的情况下生活，以及你是否有足够的经验在看到泄漏时知道泄漏。此外，必须将构造函数逻辑放在方法定义之后是不方便的。

var A = function (param1) {
    var privateVar = null; // Private variable

    // Calling this.setPrivateVar(param1) here would be an error

    this.setPrivateVar = function (value) {
        privateVar = value;
        console.log("setPrivateVar value set to: " + value);

        // param1 is still here, possible memory leak
        console.log("setPrivateVar has param1: " + param1);
    };

    // The constructor logic starts here possibly after
    // many lines of code that define methods

    this.setPrivateVar(param1); // This is valid
};

var a = new A(0);
// setPrivateVar value set to: 0
// setPrivateVar has param1: 0

a.setPrivateVar(1);
//setPrivateVar value set to: 1
//setPrivateVar has param1: 0

对比：

var A = function (param1) {
    this.setPublicVar(param1); // This is valid
};
A.prototype.setPublicVar = function (value) {
    this.publicVar = value; // No private variable
};

var a = new A(0);
a.setPublicVar(1);
console.log(a.publicVar); // 1

原型是类的模板；这适用于它的所有未来实例。而这是对象的特定实例。

第一个示例仅更改该对象的接口。第二个示例更改该类的所有对象的接口。

使用this而不是prototype的最终问题是，当重写方法时，基类的构造函数仍将引用重写的方法。考虑一下：

BaseClass = function() {
    var text = null;

    this.setText = function(value) {
        text = value + " BaseClass!";
    };

    this.getText = function() {
        return text;
    };

    this.setText("Hello"); // This always calls BaseClass.setText()
};

SubClass = function() {
    // setText is not overridden yet,
    // so the constructor calls the superclass' method
    BaseClass.call(this);

    // Keeping a reference to the superclass' method
    var super_setText = this.setText;
    // Overriding
    this.setText = function(value) {
        super_setText.call(this, "SubClass says: " + value);
    };
};
SubClass.prototype = new BaseClass();

var subClass = new SubClass();
console.log(subClass.getText()); // Hello BaseClass!

subClass.setText("Hello"); // setText is already overridden
console.log(subClass.getText()); // SubClass says: Hello BaseClass!

对比：

BaseClass = function() {
    this.setText("Hello"); // This calls the overridden method
};

BaseClass.prototype.setText = function(value) {
    this.text = value + " BaseClass!";
};

BaseClass.prototype.getText = function() {
    return this.text;
};

SubClass = function() {
    // setText is already overridden, so this works as expected
    BaseClass.call(this);
};
SubClass.prototype = new BaseClass();

SubClass.prototype.setText = function(value) {
    BaseClass.prototype.setText.call(this, "SubClass says: " + value);
};

var subClass = new SubClass();
console.log(subClass.getText()); // SubClass says: Hello BaseClass!

如果你认为这不是一个问题，那么这取决于你是否能在没有私人变量的情况下生活，以及你是否有足够的经验在看到泄漏时知道泄漏。此外，必须将构造函数逻辑放在方法定义之后是不方便的。

var A = function (param1) {
    var privateVar = null; // Private variable

    // Calling this.setPrivateVar(param1) here would be an error

    this.setPrivateVar = function (value) {
        privateVar = value;
        console.log("setPrivateVar value set to: " + value);

        // param1 is still here, possible memory leak
        console.log("setPrivateVar has param1: " + param1);
    };

    // The constructor logic starts here possibly after
    // many lines of code that define methods

    this.setPrivateVar(param1); // This is valid
};

var a = new A(0);
// setPrivateVar value set to: 0
// setPrivateVar has param1: 0

a.setPrivateVar(1);
//setPrivateVar value set to: 1
//setPrivateVar has param1: 0

对比：

var A = function (param1) {
    this.setPublicVar(param1); // This is valid
};
A.prototype.setPublicVar = function (value) {
    this.publicVar = value; // No private variable
};

var a = new A(0);
a.setPublicVar(1);
console.log(a.publicVar); // 1

在大多数情况下，它们本质上是相同的，但第二个版本节省了内存，因为只有一个函数实例，而不是每个对象都有一个单独的函数。

使用第一个表单的原因是访问“私人成员”。例如：

var A = function () {
    var private_var = ...;

    this.x = function () {
        return private_var;
    };

    this.setX = function (new_x) {
        private_var = new_x;
    };
};

由于javascript的作用域规则，private_var可用于分配给this.x的函数，但不能在对象外部使用。

我相信马修·克鲁姆利是对的。它们在功能上（如果不是结构上）是等效的。如果使用Firebug查看使用new创建的对象，可以看到它们是相同的。然而，我的偏好是以下。我猜这似乎更像我在C#/Java中所习惯的。也就是说，定义类、定义字段、构造函数和方法。

var A = function() {};
A.prototype = {
    _instance_var: 0,

    initialize: function(v) { this._instance_var = v; },

    x: function() {  alert(this._instance_var); }
};

EDIT并不意味着变量的范围是私有的，我只是想说明如何用javascript定义类。变量名称已更改以反映这一点。