5 ms·

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.ecmasc

by 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().

by joubert 14y ago

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().