4 ms·
>One of the most common features pushed by just about every framework (just saw it about React yesterday) is desperately, and leakily, trying to abstract Javasc
by danabramov 12y ago
>One of the most common features pushed by just about every framework (just saw it about React yesterday) is desperately, and leakily, trying to abstract Javascript into some sort of classic OOP language.
You missed the point of yesterday's React announcement.
It's not at all about OOP.
See this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8959691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8959691
https://twitter.com/swannodette/status/560554408782864384 https://twitter.com/swannodette/status/560554408782864384
- engendered 12y agoYou seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. I said that I saw it yesterday about React. You know, in their announcement where they outright said - "JavaScript originally didn't have a built-in class system. Every popular framework built their own, and so did we." I was not making a comment on any new development or change in direction, just that React (a tool I don't use) admitted to also jumping on the pretend-OOP thing.
- danabramov 12y agoThank you for clarification, I get your point now. To be fair though, React never allowed inheritance (even in its own class system) so it's a bit misleading to compare it to other frameworks where (pseudo-)inheritance is one of the valid ways to reuse UI code. Of all OOP, in my experience it's inheritance that doesn't play well with UI code at all—and React never allowed it in the first place.