4 ms·

I am bit concerned that the standard committee is going to make the language worse while trying to fix it. Yes it is inconvenient to do traditional OO programm

by cmbaus 13y ago

I am bit concerned that the standard committee is going to make the language worse while trying to fix it. Yes it is inconvenient to do traditional OO programming with JavaScript, but I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. Encouraging subclassing, as pointed out by the author, could actually be detrimental.

camus2 13y ago
I am bit concerned that the standard committee is going to make the language worse while trying to fix it. AFAIK the goal is write what you mean and not "fake stuffs because the language lacks structure". Dont want to use any ES6 new syntax, dont use it. And yes , the committee SHOULD meet developpers demands as much as possible. Javascript has no clear paradigm,everything should be on the table.
- cmbaus 13y ago
  To clarify, what concerns me is that by adding syntax that is similar to Java, developers coming from other languages (namely Java), won't take the time to understand the differences between the two languages and continue to write applications as they would in Java. Everyone has their biases, and my bias would be to embrace the dynamic and functional aspects of the languages that separate it from Java, rather than creating new syntax that pastes over the fact that the language is fundamentally different.
  - peterashford 13y ago
    I'm a Java programmer and I think classes in JS would be awful. Tacking on the ES6 behaviour will not make JS a sane OO language, it'll make JS a bunch of new, inconsistent behaviours tacked onto the old, inconsistent behaviours. FWIW I'm with you: I think that treating JS as a functional language is a cleaner fit that crowbar-ing OOP into it.
    - V-2 13y ago
      You don't like TypeScript?
      - peterashford 13y ago
        I think it was a valid approach to the problem and I salute MS for it, but no - I don't like it. We considered it at work and felt we were fighting JS's natural tendencies too much. Our decision is to deal with JS on it's own terms. Clojurescript would be appealing if it didn't involve an AOT compiler (and one that's not trivial to set up in Windows)
spikels 13y ago
The ES6 changes are a mixed bag. We get some nice syntax improvements and an overly complex module system. I'm mostly positive on the new class syntax as it does simplify OO code. However as the author points out it is still the same JavaScript "imitation" objects. I agree with you that it could actually make it more tempting to build complex and fragile object heirarchies.

by cmbaus 13y ago

camus2 13y ago

I am bit concerned that the standard committee is going to make the language worse while trying to fix it. AFAIK the goal is write what you mean and not "fake stuffs because the language lacks structure". Dont want to use any ES6 new syntax, dont use it. And yes , the committee SHOULD meet developpers demands as much as possible. Javascript has no clear paradigm,everything should be on the table.

cmbaus 13y ago
To clarify, what concerns me is that by adding syntax that is similar to Java, developers coming from other languages (namely Java), won't take the time to understand the differences between the two languages and continue to write applications as they would in Java. Everyone has their biases, and my bias would be to embrace the dynamic and functional aspects of the languages that separate it from Java, rather than creating new syntax that pastes over the fact that the language is fundamentally different.
- peterashford 13y ago
  I'm a Java programmer and I think classes in JS would be awful. Tacking on the ES6 behaviour will not make JS a sane OO language, it'll make JS a bunch of new, inconsistent behaviours tacked onto the old, inconsistent behaviours. FWIW I'm with you: I think that treating JS as a functional language is a cleaner fit that crowbar-ing OOP into it.
  - V-2 13y ago
    You don't like TypeScript?
    - peterashford 13y ago
      I think it was a valid approach to the problem and I salute MS for it, but no - I don't like it. We considered it at work and felt we were fighting JS's natural tendencies too much. Our decision is to deal with JS on it's own terms. Clojurescript would be appealing if it didn't involve an AOT compiler (and one that's not trivial to set up in Windows)

spikels 13y ago

The ES6 changes are a mixed bag. We get some nice syntax improvements and an overly complex module system. I'm mostly positive on the new class syntax as it does simplify OO code. However as the author points out it is still the same JavaScript "imitation" objects. I agree with you that it could actually make it more tempting to build complex and fragile object heirarchies.