8 ms·

Understanding Javascript OOP

154 points by old_sound 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
joubert 14y ago
The ES6 draft spec now includes the (maximally minimal) class spec that was hashed out at the July TC 39 meeting. You can read the spec here: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification... and see some examples here: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_minimal_classes http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_mi... There's a cool project, Harmonizr (https://github.com/jdiamond/harmonizr https://github.com/jdiamond/harmonizr) which transpiles ES6 to ES5, which you can leverage to start using classes, modules, arrow syntax, etc. now. Demo: http://jdiamond.github.com/harmonizr/demo/demo.html http://jdiamond.github.com/harmonizr/demo/demo.html
- hayksaakian 14y ago
  thank the lord, i can't imagine something as ubiquitous as javascript still has no syntactically intuitive class system
  - darkstalker 14y ago
    The MooTools library implements declarative class syntax for regular javascript: http://mootools.net/docs/core/Class/Class http://mootools.net/docs/core/Class/Class
    - joubert 14y ago
      The next trick is for libraries to make sure their homegrown class systems are migrated to ES6 classes, or interop with consistent semantics.
      - emehrkay 14y ago
        MooTools has always aimed to be compliant with the next version of Ecma. In a lot of ways it is a shim for whatever is next.
  - elehack 14y ago
    Why not? Classes are just one implementation/realization of OOP. They're the most common, to be sure, but they're by no means the only way to do objects, nor are they necessarily the best. “There is more to OOP, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”
- jarek-foksa 14y ago
  From my read of the proposal ES6 classes feel more like syntactic sugar for the flawed concept of new/constructor/obj.prototype, you still have to mess with obj.prototype to achieve some tasks (e.g. define non-enumerable property). I would stay away from it and just use plain objects with Object.create().
zwieback 14y ago
Thanks for that. In my mind I've been calling C++, C#, etc. "class-based" programming since the design/programming phase is really focussed on classes. I've not much experience with prototype-based programming other than the occasional blurb. This is a nice intro.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- protomyth 14y ago
  If you have the time, go look at an explanation of NewtonScript then Self. NewtonScript takes the concepts of Self and created a pretty nice little language that is a little more accessible than Self (unless you know Smalltalk, then go with Self first). I like prototype-based languages and really wish that NewtonScript had a little better syntax. On the other hand, I have never been fond of Javascript and don't know why. http://selflanguage.org http://selflanguage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewtonScript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewtonScript and http://waltersmith.us/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/OOPSLA95.pdf http://waltersmith.us/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/OOPSLA95.pd...
  - stan_rogers 14y ago
    Cognitive dissonance, likely. It doesn't look like what it is, no matter which part of it you're using at the time. Its selfish features aren't Self, its speech impediment isn't really a Lisp, its coffee-flavouring isn't Java... No matter which door you open, you get a preliminary sense of déja vu, then realise that you haven't actually been there before; it's just something that reminds you of something else. It takes a while to settle into JS mode, where the language is just what it is, and not "sort of like X, but completely different". (Once I'm there, I like to stay there—but there's always something else to do that drags me into another language, and when I come back, I experience the same cycle process again.)
- ExpiredLink 14y ago
  > This is a nice intro. ... with a misleading title since it's about "Prototypical inheritance".
SwearWord 14y ago
This is the best js tutorial I've seen in a while
migfromparis 14y ago
Really good tutorial. I enjoyed reading it.
rbellio 14y ago
I was just looking for something like this last week, this is a great tutorial, thanks for posting it up here. When Anders was discussing the new TypeScript release, he was mentioning how it more clearly mimicked the ES6 specification. Looking at some of the examples posted by joubert, you can see the similarities. TypeScript transpiles down to ES5 much like Harmonizr does as well. Very interesting stuff.
andyl 14y ago
Great tutorial - thank you.
grandalf 14y ago
This is superb.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
justinj 14y ago
or, for a shorter read, try http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in-javascript/ http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in...
jasonkostempski 14y ago
I thought I had read it all at this point. I really like the deep dive into Object. No one ever goes beyond Object.create() and that's usually just as an example of how not to create new objects :)
jroseattle 14y ago
very well done.

154 points by old_sound 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

The ES6 draft spec now includes the (maximally minimal) class spec that was hashed out at the July TC 39 meeting. You can read the spec here: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification... and see some examples here: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_minimal_classes http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_mi... There's a cool project, Harmonizr (https://github.com/jdiamond/harmonizr https://github.com/jdiamond/harmonizr) which transpiles ES6 to ES5, which you can leverage to start using classes, modules, arrow syntax, etc. now. Demo: http://jdiamond.github.com/harmonizr/demo/demo.html http://jdiamond.github.com/harmonizr/demo/demo.html

hayksaakian 14y ago
thank the lord, i can't imagine something as ubiquitous as javascript still has no syntactically intuitive class system
- darkstalker 14y ago
  The MooTools library implements declarative class syntax for regular javascript: http://mootools.net/docs/core/Class/Class http://mootools.net/docs/core/Class/Class
  - joubert 14y ago
    The next trick is for libraries to make sure their homegrown class systems are migrated to ES6 classes, or interop with consistent semantics.
    - emehrkay 14y ago
      MooTools has always aimed to be compliant with the next version of Ecma. In a lot of ways it is a shim for whatever is next.
- elehack 14y ago
  Why not? Classes are just one implementation/realization of OOP. They're the most common, to be sure, but they're by no means the only way to do objects, nor are they necessarily the best. “There is more to OOP, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”
jarek-foksa 14y ago
From my read of the proposal ES6 classes feel more like syntactic sugar for the flawed concept of new/constructor/obj.prototype, you still have to mess with obj.prototype to achieve some tasks (e.g. define non-enumerable property). I would stay away from it and just use plain objects with Object.create().

zwieback 14y ago

Thanks for that. In my mind I've been calling C++, C#, etc. "class-based" programming since the design/programming phase is really focussed on classes. I've not much experience with prototype-based programming other than the occasional blurb. This is a nice intro.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 14y ago
If you have the time, go look at an explanation of NewtonScript then Self. NewtonScript takes the concepts of Self and created a pretty nice little language that is a little more accessible than Self (unless you know Smalltalk, then go with Self first). I like prototype-based languages and really wish that NewtonScript had a little better syntax. On the other hand, I have never been fond of Javascript and don't know why. http://selflanguage.org http://selflanguage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewtonScript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewtonScript and http://waltersmith.us/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/OOPSLA95.pdf http://waltersmith.us/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/OOPSLA95.pd...
- stan_rogers 14y ago
  Cognitive dissonance, likely. It doesn't look like what it is, no matter which part of it you're using at the time. Its selfish features aren't Self, its speech impediment isn't really a Lisp, its coffee-flavouring isn't Java... No matter which door you open, you get a preliminary sense of déja vu, then realise that you haven't actually been there before; it's just something that reminds you of something else. It takes a while to settle into JS mode, where the language is just what it is, and not "sort of like X, but completely different". (Once I'm there, I like to stay there—but there's always something else to do that drags me into another language, and when I come back, I experience the same cycle process again.)
ExpiredLink 14y ago
> This is a nice intro. ... with a misleading title since it's about "Prototypical inheritance".

SwearWord 14y ago

This is the best js tutorial I've seen in a while

migfromparis 14y ago

Really good tutorial. I enjoyed reading it.

rbellio 14y ago

I was just looking for something like this last week, this is a great tutorial, thanks for posting it up here. When Anders was discussing the new TypeScript release, he was mentioning how it more clearly mimicked the ES6 specification. Looking at some of the examples posted by joubert, you can see the similarities. TypeScript transpiles down to ES5 much like Harmonizr does as well. Very interesting stuff.

andyl 14y ago

Great tutorial - thank you.

grandalf 14y ago

This is superb.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

justinj 14y ago

or, for a shorter read, try http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in-javascript/ http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in...

jasonkostempski 14y ago

I thought I had read it all at this point. I really like the deep dive into Object. No one ever goes beyond Object.create() and that's usually just as an example of how not to create new objects :)

jroseattle 14y ago

very well done.