3 ms·

He meant proper OO as opposed to the shanty prototype one.

• jbergens 12y ago
  The problem is for anyone who sees prototype OO as a better solution. They kind of give their blessings to the other OO, which is a bit sad. (edit: spelling)
  • cgcardona 12y ago
    I see it the other way--prototype OO was given the blessing of the Creators of the language back in the mid 90s when it was created. Though the people who 'get' prototypes swear that they're the greatest paradigm ever you will still get a huge amount of people coming in from other languages which find the prototype chain awkward and prefer to think in complex class hierarchies. These people who choose to create their abstractions out of classes are in no way 'wrong.' To each their own. Adding `class` syntactic sugar is just standardizing on something which many people already do every day.
• chriswarbo 12y ago
  Since you've not defined it, I'll assume "proper OO" is referring to Alan Kay's formulation: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HeInventedTheTerm http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HeInventedTheTerm In that case, his opinion on class vs. prototypes is that it misses the point: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-... As an aside, prototypes are strictly more powerful than classes, so they're no "shanty": http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Lieberary/OOP/Delegation/Delegation.html http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Lieberary/OOP/Delegation/De... (esp. section 6)