I find this really amusing and nostalgic because our original implementation of Objective-J was very similar to this while in college, you can see what one of t

I find this really amusing and nostalgic because our original implementation of Objective-J was very similar to this while in college, you can see what one of the iterations looked like in my "Road to Cappuccino" Ajax Experience presentation: http://280slides.com/Viewer/?user=56&name=Ajax%20Experience&fullscreen&slide=24 http://280slides.com/Viewer/?user=56&name=Ajax%20Experie... Ultimately we decided to drop the Java-like syntax in favor of the Objective-C style syntax because we wanted the language to be both a strict superset of JavaScript and future-proof (in other words, if the class keyword or any other keyword later entered the JavaScript language, for our superset to continue working). That presentation has some more info on that, as does my abstractions post: http://cappuccino.org/discuss/2008/12/08/on-leaky-abstractions-and-objective-j/ http://cappuccino.org/discuss/2008/12/08/on-leaky-abstractio... I think anyone who works on JS on large systems ultimately reaches these conclusions. That's why so many JS frameworks invent some sort of class model. I hope you find those links useful in your own endeavors. I would recommend not bothering with ECMA and just releasing something for people to play with today. You will get more actual useful feedback in one week than anything some committee that never actually tries using it will tell you.