You should never be using `.constructor` anyway because it isn't reliable because a very common pattern replaces the `.prototype` with a new object who's `.cons

You should never be using `.constructor` anyway because it isn't reliable because a very common pattern replaces the `.prototype` with a new object who's `.constructor` is `Object` var Foo = function () {}; Foo.prototype = { bar() { return 'bar'; } }; var f = new Foo(); f.constructor === Object; When you use `class` you are still messing with `.prototype`. The danger is that programmers new to JS don't understand that they are and don't understand why that matters. Calling `super` is very anti-pattern in JS. Unlike classic OOP, parents are not static. Lots of very common things can rip that rug out from under you by modifying the parent in many different ways (createProperty, Symbols, proxies/reflection, etc). Static methods do indeed exist without classes. class Foo { static bar() { return 'bar'; } } //is identical to function Foo() {} Foo.bar = function() { return 'bar'; } If you use `Object.create()` and ES6 object literal syntax you don't have to type `function` either. You get the added bonus of being easily able to wrap it in a normal function that avoids constructor weirdness var someProto = { bar() { return 'bar'; } } var myInst = Object.create(someProto);