3 ms·

Yeah, javascript's prototypal inheritance is flexible enough to simulate classical inheritance. I wouldn't call that a wart. http://www.prototypejs.org/learn/c

Yeah, javascript's prototypal inheritance is flexible enough to simulate classical inheritance. I wouldn't call that a wart. http://www.prototypejs.org/learn/class-inheritance http://www.prototypejs.org/learn/class-inheritance http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dojo/declare.html http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dojo/declare.html Plus, I tend to prefer prototypal inheritance to classical inheritance. I do agree that the constructor pattern using the new keyword and the prototype object is a bit odd, but that's not the only way to have objects inherit from other objects in javascript.

WayneDB 15y ago
The wart is that since classical inheritance isn't built into the language, we get: 1) Crummy syntax. 2) Everybody doing it a different way.
- bgrohman 15y ago
  I see your point to some extent. I don't think the functions for mimicking classes provided by libraries like Prototype and Dojo have particularly crummy syntax. But since there isn't a standardized way to create classes, implementations are usually a little different. Still, according to this logic, any language that doesn't support classical inheritance has warts. I'm not sure I agree with that. JavaScript doesn't have classical inheritance built in, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that it's really needed from a programming standpoint. Your point #2 is valid, but could that can be attributed to the programmers who use the language rather than the language itself?
true_religion 15y ago
I've used both methods of inheritance. Prototypical inheritance in the IO Language is a beautiful thing. Not so much in Javascript. Class based inheritance in Smalltalk and its dynamic mind-children Python and Ruby are similarly elegant and flexible. Not so much in C++ or Java. The problem isn't with Prototypical inheritance, its with the implementation of it in Javascript.

WayneDB 15y ago

The wart is that since classical inheritance isn't built into the language, we get: 1) Crummy syntax. 2) Everybody doing it a different way.

bgrohman 15y ago
I see your point to some extent. I don't think the functions for mimicking classes provided by libraries like Prototype and Dojo have particularly crummy syntax. But since there isn't a standardized way to create classes, implementations are usually a little different. Still, according to this logic, any language that doesn't support classical inheritance has warts. I'm not sure I agree with that. JavaScript doesn't have classical inheritance built in, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that it's really needed from a programming standpoint. Your point #2 is valid, but could that can be attributed to the programmers who use the language rather than the language itself?

true_religion 15y ago

I've used both methods of inheritance. Prototypical inheritance in the IO Language is a beautiful thing. Not so much in Javascript. Class based inheritance in Smalltalk and its dynamic mind-children Python and Ruby are similarly elegant and flexible. Not so much in C++ or Java. The problem isn't with Prototypical inheritance, its with the implementation of it in Javascript.