4 ms·
We're probably going to see some declination of the parasitic inheritance in the next parts, none-the-less this article has been a good read. You don't find a l
by yuchi 14y ago
We're probably going to see some declination of the parasitic inheritance in the next parts, none-the-less this article has been a good read. You don't find a lot of real JS article these days.
- _getify 14y agoI will not be directly addressing "parasitic inheritance" as I never saw it to be a terribly useful pattern, honestly. I see it very rarely used and even more rarely referenced by that name. The point I'd make about it here, though, which is generically reflected in today's part 2 article, is that it's a fine pattern in and of itself, but the reason I think it's a "distraction" is that it actually moves away from the [[Prototype]] chain entirely. You can use it as a bespoke pattern for combining two objects, but it's a mistake/confusion to think this has anything to do with JS's underlying delegation mechanism. The same point is made about mixins, and polymorphism (which also requires implicit mixins).
- yuchi 14y agoI have to admin part 2 perfectly sums my ideas about JS and classical OOP inheritance. Looking forward part3 and its "solution".