> why is the language taking a OO direction Classes are just sugar over how devs were already doing class-like stuff with prototypes (see backbone/ember/angul

> why is the language taking a OO direction Classes are just sugar over how devs were already doing class-like stuff with prototypes (see backbone/ember/angular etc). So I'd disagree that the language is 'taking an OO direction'. > If the tendency of the developer community is towards (faux) functional programming Wouldn't agree with that either. Some sub-communities perhaps. But e.g. in React there's a big push back towards using (class-based) Components and good old setState(). > I'd like to use ES6 classes, but I can't because I'm told it's not idiomatic These people need re-informing! React Components and setState() are what Facebook use. In my opinion, setState() plus a router will handle the vast majority of state in your app just fine. To get more of a feel for this setState() vs Redux kerfuffle: Ryan Florence (of React Router) is a Components/setState proponent, and great person to follow on Twitter. I like his intro to this talk [1] where he talks about the issue. Also highly recommend reading 'Functional setState is the Future of React' [2]. And of course I think it's already been posted elsewhere in the thread, but Dan Abramov's own 'You might not need Redux' is definitely worth a read [3]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-NOggyz54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-NOggyz54 [2] https://medium.freecodecamp.com/functional-setstate-is-the-future-of-react-374f30401b6b https://medium.freecodecamp.com/functional-setstate-is-the-f... [3] https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/you-might-not-need-redux-be46360cf367 https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/you-might-not-need-redux-be4...