1) Ya….I don’t know who the hell John is. Good catch.

2) I’m not saying it is an out-right singleton, but only that it behaves like one since object assignment is by reference, and not by value. Also “static object” is a common second name for object literals.

3) I don’t believe there is such a thing, but I couldn’t find any definitive source stating one way or the other. Anonymous functions, yes, because you can create and execute a function in one statement without ever storing a reference to it. But anonymous object? I’m not so sure. It may be anonymous in one scope, but eventually a reference to it is stored in a very un-anonymous variable; otherwise, it is useless. If you look at it from a type perspective, all user defined objects are of type `object`, regardless if it is a literal or instantiated object.

1) I assume you mean Douglas Crockford, not John Crockford.

2) Also, I think you might be confusing static and global variables. A static variable only implies that it was allocated at compile-time, not that it is globally available. The same thing goes for calling the global variable a singleton, a singleton is a design pattern, a global variable is a variable that is available within all execution scopes.

3) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the first class of objects you descrive are called anonymous objects, not static objects. This is because the value of the objects at creation time can be affected by the runtime stack.

Other than that, nice article. This should clear up the difference between the two types of objects for ALOT of people