3 ms·
This is the primary reason I didn't like the idea of adding "classes" to JavaScript in the first place. Classical OOP doesn't really have a place here and all i
by rocky1138 9y ago
This is the primary reason I didn't like the idea of adding "classes" to JavaScript in the first place. Classical OOP doesn't really have a place here and all it does is invite the wrong type of thinking into the language.
- just_astounded 9y agoAgreed. We already had solutions for inheritance, etc... using prototypes, which are more powerful than classic OOP. Now we're in sort of a mess hybrid thing where issues like this are mostly unsolvable in a clean way.
- stupidcar 9y agoJS classes build on prototypal inheritance, they aren't an alternative mechanism. So you apparently either don't understand them, don't understand "classic OOP", or both.
- just_astounded 9y agoYeah, I've only been doing OOP for about 22 years, so I'm pretty new to it. The point was that the syntactic sugar isn't needed. The 'class' sugar actually obscures the power of prototypal inheritance, and imho, discourages people from learning it - to their, and the language's, detriment.
- camus2 9y ago> The point was that the syntactic sugar isn't needed. Yes it is. The success of CoffeeSCript is absolutely a validation that developers are more productive with syntactic sugar such as the class keyword, destructuring and many many other features. Now nobody forces you to use them. So why complain? It doesn't make Javascript harder to read for you, quite the contrary.
- just_astounded 9y ago> So why complain? So it is your opinion that the community and users shouldn't give feedback on the design and direction of the language they use every day? That's an interesting approach to openness.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]