2 ms·
> Lack of standardization around how to do objects, inheritance, encapsulation led to a total bizarre mixture of approaches and misunderstandings. That void ne
by cxr 3y ago
> Lack of standardization around how to do objects, inheritance, encapsulation led to a total bizarre mixture of approaches and misunderstandings.
That void never really existed. There was the right way to do it, basically the same way that ES6's class syntax actually works today, and then there were a bunch of people fooling themselves into believing that the impedance mismatch that resulted from writing code against their own derpy metaprogramming system they'd devised themselves was acceptable. The attitudes associated with that mindset never really went away—it's what drives the demand for stuff like Webpack, along with NodeJS's CommonJS-inspired approach to modularization infecting everything and the README for create-react-app providing list of steps to get someone up and running requiring them to download half a gigabyte of packages to their disk before they can successfully complete the Hello, World exercise, not to mention the abstraction (and resulting boondoggle) that is React itself.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoIf I put myself back there in the mid 90s, I actually don't think Netscape paid it (OO semantics & standards) much heed because the purpose of the language at the time really was just to add some minor scripting behaviour / actions to pages, not to build out applications. Actual "serious" uses of JS didn't really ramp up until the end of the decade, and by then people were doing what you're saying, yes. Netscape releasing a style guide with the language, and a set of standard libraries that used them, that would have helped. But everyone back then was too distracted with "Java is the Future of the Browser" (Narrator: It Wasn't)