3 ms·
> Javascript is not an OO language, it doesn't work like that. What ? it certainly is today with the "class" syntax. Or it is like saying neither Ruby or Pytho
by aikah 11y ago
> Javascript is not an OO language, it doesn't work like that.
What ? it certainly is today with the "class" syntax. Or it is like saying neither Ruby or Python are object oriented.
> elegant language,
Elegance is in the eye of the beholder
- angersock 11y agoMinor point of order...Ruby is OO because it very much follows the Smalltalk-style message-as-function-invocation pattern. Javascript (at least before ES6) is perhaps too minimal in its language affordances to qualify for "true" OO status.
- marcus_holmes 11y agothere's a lot of people who objected to adding "class" syntax to Javascript purely for this reason. Javascript objects are not the same things as Python (or Smalltalk) objects, they don't work the same way and were never intended to. There is a good case to be made that Smalltalk-type OO with multiple inheritance (like Python) is a bad thing. Javascript's type of OO is a good way of avoiding that bad thing. I agree that elegance is purely subjective, and if you choose not to find javascript elegant because it lacks a certain "python-ness" then that's entirely your decision. However I would encourage you to expand your horizons a bit and stretch your understanding a little more.