3 ms·
From MDN[1]: > JavaScript classes, introduced in ECMAScript 2015, are primarily syntactical sugar over JavaScript's existing prototype-based inheritance. The c
by runarberg 8y ago
From MDN[1]:
> JavaScript classes, introduced in ECMAScript 2015, are primarily syntactical sugar over JavaScript's existing prototype-based inheritance. The class syntax does not introduce a new object-oriented inheritance model to JavaScript.
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Classes https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
- runarberg 8y agoDo note though that there is a lot of syntax that is hidden with the `class` keyword. So even though it is primarily a syntactic sugar, it is by no means trivial.
- ronilan 8y agoCalling something “syntactical sugar” makes it sound unhealthy. I found the ES6 classes to be very helpful in conceptualizing stuff. When I started playing with them I’ve built myself a demo https://codepen.io/ronilan/pen/PObzew https://codepen.io/ronilan/pen/PObzew as a clone of same done previously in Ruby. Then I found classes to be very useful for bigger “vanilla” projects (https://github.com/ronilan/BlockLike https://github.com/ronilan/BlockLike) I’d call them “syntactical vitamins”.
- labster 8y agoThere's no alliteration there. I'd go with syntactic soylent.
- krapp 8y ago> Calling something “syntactical sugar” makes it sound unhealthy. I would argue that, more often than not, it is, and it becomes less healthy the more of it you have. Javascript, for all its faults, is syntactically a simple language and it should have been kept that way.