4 ms·

I tend to agree with you. The thing is that most people would agree but at the time everyone wants different features. Me personally I even think we could be be

I tend to agree with you. The thing is that most people would agree but at the time everyone wants different features. Me personally I even think we could be better without classes and all that "pretend you're writing Java" nonsense

shados 8y ago
> I even think we could be better without classes Absolutely. Classes are also a big part of why there's still a lot of bikeshedding for some new features (class properties, decorators, private fields, etc). Classes are familiar to most developers these days, but they're an absurdly complicated construct. The current implementation in javascript is "maximally minimal", in that the TC39 pushed the minimum they could that was still kind of sortoff useful to get the wheel rolling...but it's still not good enough. They'll need several more updates before they're truly useful. And even when that's all there, they still won't offer much that wasn't already doable, arguably better if less familiar. At the end of the day, ES6 classes were designed back in the days where OOP was getting big in JavaScript. It took so long to release that by the time they were, the field had changed a lot.
coltonv 8y ago
I see this idea that adding classes to JS was a bad thing a lot, but even though I don't ever use classes in my codebase, I don't know why it would make sense to remove them before adding new features, or to stall new features because they exist and I don't like them. In my opinion, we should be moving forward with features that make functional paradigms easier, such as the pipeline operator, regardless of the fact that JS has object oriented features. There's no reason to stall new features just because different people want different features, at this moment we're pleasing no one with the slow release cycle.
tracker1 8y ago
I tend to prefer more utility/function approaches as much as possible. The exception to sometimes you need to carry context in a way often more simple (in terms of source complexity) to use class syntax. Not in every case, but some.

shados 8y ago

> I even think we could be better without classes Absolutely. Classes are also a big part of why there's still a lot of bikeshedding for some new features (class properties, decorators, private fields, etc). Classes are familiar to most developers these days, but they're an absurdly complicated construct. The current implementation in javascript is "maximally minimal", in that the TC39 pushed the minimum they could that was still kind of sortoff useful to get the wheel rolling...but it's still not good enough. They'll need several more updates before they're truly useful. And even when that's all there, they still won't offer much that wasn't already doable, arguably better if less familiar. At the end of the day, ES6 classes were designed back in the days where OOP was getting big in JavaScript. It took so long to release that by the time they were, the field had changed a lot.

coltonv 8y ago

I see this idea that adding classes to JS was a bad thing a lot, but even though I don't ever use classes in my codebase, I don't know why it would make sense to remove them before adding new features, or to stall new features because they exist and I don't like them. In my opinion, we should be moving forward with features that make functional paradigms easier, such as the pipeline operator, regardless of the fact that JS has object oriented features. There's no reason to stall new features just because different people want different features, at this moment we're pleasing no one with the slow release cycle.

tracker1 8y ago

I tend to prefer more utility/function approaches as much as possible. The exception to sometimes you need to carry context in a way often more simple (in terms of source complexity) to use class syntax. Not in every case, but some.