3 ms·

I'm so sick of these paradigm religious wars. There's nothing wrong with object oriented programming. There's nothing wrong with functional, either. You use the

I'm so sick of these paradigm religious wars. There's nothing wrong with object oriented programming. There's nothing wrong with functional, either. You use them for different purposes. These people like Crockford who talk about "Java programmers are stuck in this inferior way" are the ones who are stuck and not all that educated on programming.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago
There's also a lot to be said for having fewer footguns. One reason I liked CoffeeScript is that it actually removed JS footguns such as "with", ==, etc. I'd rather either Clojure or Java to using Scala and having all the possible complexity and interactions between paradigms it makes possible. Sometimes less is more.
suzzer99 3y ago
Wait until you have to maintain someone else's overly crufty, inheritance-based JS framework.
- moron4hire 3y ago
  There's nothing wrong with inheritance, even in JavaScript.
lobstrosity420 3y ago
They weren’t criticizing OOP per se. Before the class keyword, JavaScript had much more powerful OOP semantics using metaobjects.
- jdlshore 3y ago
  The class keyword is just syntactic sugar. JS still uses prototypal inheritance. Nothing has changed. Check out objectplayground.com for details.
  - lobstrosity420 3y ago
    Not ‘nothing’ has changed. Classes are supposed to be syntactic sugar over constructor functions, but the later could be invoked as well as instantiated with the ‘new’ keyword, whereas the interpreter will error out on you if you attempt to invoke a class. That is fine though, I don’t care for constructor functions. I was talking about using metaobjects, a different concept altogether.
    - jdlshore 3y ago
      Okay, I think I get your complaint. JavaScript doesn’t have a metaobject protocol, but there were a variety of user-land approaches to OOP that added one. Although they’re still technically possible, the class syntax formalized a non-MOP approach to OOP, and those third-party tools have all fallen by the wayside. It’s not so much that you can’t use a MOP in JS, so much that people don’t, and will look at you funny if you do. As a lover of simple and straightforward code, I never used the MOPs—I hand-coded “class.prototype.method = function()” like God intended*—and I’m happy the standard uses that more traditional approach. But I can see how someone who did use a MOP would feel that the class syntax is a step backwards. *that’s a joke.
      - lobstrosity420 3y ago
        Yes, this is it. The MOP approach basically involves using ‘Object.assign’ to instantiate new objects from the metaobject. It is quite straightforward in my opinion, but that is relative I suppose. I don’t know if this is true but I’ve been told that Brendan Eich intended for this exact approach to be the one and true OOP in JS, but was persuaded by his boss to implement constructor functions to make it more like Java.
        moron4hire 3y ago
        That'd be a little weird if that was Eich's "original vision" considering `Object.assign` didn't come out until ES6. Which was also when the `class` keyword was introduced.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

There's also a lot to be said for having fewer footguns. One reason I liked CoffeeScript is that it actually removed JS footguns such as "with", ==, etc. I'd rather either Clojure or Java to using Scala and having all the possible complexity and interactions between paradigms it makes possible. Sometimes less is more.

suzzer99 3y ago

Wait until you have to maintain someone else's overly crufty, inheritance-based JS framework.

moron4hire 3y ago
There's nothing wrong with inheritance, even in JavaScript.

lobstrosity420 3y ago

They weren’t criticizing OOP per se. Before the class keyword, JavaScript had much more powerful OOP semantics using metaobjects.

jdlshore 3y ago
The class keyword is just syntactic sugar. JS still uses prototypal inheritance. Nothing has changed. Check out objectplayground.com for details.
- lobstrosity420 3y ago
  Not ‘nothing’ has changed. Classes are supposed to be syntactic sugar over constructor functions, but the later could be invoked as well as instantiated with the ‘new’ keyword, whereas the interpreter will error out on you if you attempt to invoke a class. That is fine though, I don’t care for constructor functions. I was talking about using metaobjects, a different concept altogether.
  - jdlshore 3y ago
    Okay, I think I get your complaint. JavaScript doesn’t have a metaobject protocol, but there were a variety of user-land approaches to OOP that added one. Although they’re still technically possible, the class syntax formalized a non-MOP approach to OOP, and those third-party tools have all fallen by the wayside. It’s not so much that you can’t use a MOP in JS, so much that people don’t, and will look at you funny if you do. As a lover of simple and straightforward code, I never used the MOPs—I hand-coded “class.prototype.method = function()” like God intended*—and I’m happy the standard uses that more traditional approach. But I can see how someone who did use a MOP would feel that the class syntax is a step backwards. *that’s a joke.
    - lobstrosity420 3y ago
      Yes, this is it. The MOP approach basically involves using ‘Object.assign’ to instantiate new objects from the metaobject. It is quite straightforward in my opinion, but that is relative I suppose. I don’t know if this is true but I’ve been told that Brendan Eich intended for this exact approach to be the one and true OOP in JS, but was persuaded by his boss to implement constructor functions to make it more like Java.
      - moron4hire 3y ago
        That'd be a little weird if that was Eich's "original vision" considering `Object.assign` didn't come out until ES6. Which was also when the `class` keyword was introduced.