Defining a Javascript prototype

Solution 1:

Am I correct in assuming that Option 2 results in trashing certain functions that are implicitly bound to the prototype?

Yes, exactly. Though the only implicitly bound property is the constructor property, which you seldom do need.

What are the functional differences?

Option 1 is just extending the existing prototype. If there are already Person instances inheriting from the prototype object, they will be able to use the sayName method as well. With option 2, the new prototype will only be used for objects that are instantiated after the overwriting.

Are there any benefits for choosing one over the other?

These should be self-explaining now. Option 1 (extending) is considered cleaner, and is a must if you're modifying foreign/unknown/native prototypes. Try to avoid option 2.

If you still like the object literal syntax better, you should consider using Object.assign to extend the existing prototype:

Object.assign(Person.prototype, {
   sayName: function(name) {
      alert(name);
   }
});

_{You may need to polyfill Object.assign for pre-ES6 environments. Alternatively, $.extend or _.extend work just as well. Surely also your favourite library comes with a helper function for this.}

Solution 2:

The second one will overwrite person.prototype with the object.

Method one:

Object.toString=function(){
  return "Object to string";
}
var Person = function(){
};
Person.toString=function(){
  return "Person to string";
}
Person.prototype.sayName=function(){}
console.log(Person.prototype.constructor.toString());// "Person to string"

Method two:

Object.toString=function(){
  return "Object to string";
}
var Person = function(){
};
Person.toString=function(){
  return "Person to string";
}
Person.prototype = {
  sayName:function(){}
}
console.log(Person.prototype.constructor.toString());// "Object to string"