4 ms·
Lack of classes is one reason to prefer JavaScript to Ruby. People always feel the need to add complexity where it isn't needed.
by richcollins 17y ago
Lack of classes is one reason to prefer JavaScript to Ruby. People always feel the need to add complexity where it isn't needed.
- jrockway 17y agoYes, the lack of the class abstraction does add complexity to your code. That's why frameworks like this exist.
- richcollins 17y agoI was making the opposite assertion. How are classes simpler than prototypes? If you want to add behavior to the proto and the clone, you just add a method to the proto. If you want to add behavior to a class and its instances, you have to do a fair bit more.
- jrockway 17y agoPrototypes offer no contract, so it's up to the consumer to ensure that the object received is acceptable. Classes offer a contract, so if an object is an instance, it's guaranteed to work (Liskov, etc.). Basically, the idea of OOP is information hiding and polymorphism, and prototype-based objects throw both of these concepts away. The result is more complicated code in general.
- richcollins 17y agoRuby Classes don't provide a contract either. You can add and remove methods to your heart's desire. information hiding is the principle of segregation of design decisions in a computer program that are most likely to change, thus protecting other parts of the program from extensive modification if the design decision is changed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_hiding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_hiding How are prototypes inferior to classes with respect to information hiding? They provide the ability to easily change the implementation while maintaining the interface. How do prototypes inhibit polymorphism? All of the prototype languages that I know of (Javascript, Io, Self, Lua ...) make it easy to take advantage of polymorphism.