3 ms·

JavaScript is object oriented just like any other language. The difference is that it is prototype-based OO instead of class-based OO. I would say that JavaScr

JavaScript is object oriented just like any other language. The difference is that it is prototype-based OO instead of class-based OO. I would say that JavaScript's OO is actually more powerful/flexible than other languages but it is less readable and more error prone if you're not careful - For example, the fact that objects can 'borrow' a method from other object an apply it to themselves is a common source of issues for beginners.

smt88 11y ago
It's possible to get power without flexibility. Flexibility is bad -- it creates code that is idiomatic to the person who wrote it. Rust and Go are so exciting because they've intentionally rejected flexibility without compromising power.
- tragic 11y ago
  Flexibility is not 'bad' - it's a tradeoff. More flexible languages are better for writing DSLs, etc; but using them means a lot of self discipline regarding code style. One thing I wish JS had is a PEP8-style canonical style document. I would find that more useful than classes. On classes, I am among the less excited about them; however, we are in a ridiculous situation where there are about 500 different library implementations of class inheritance. Backbone has one. Ember has one. Node has util.inherits. Various transpile-to-JS languages (CS, TS) all have their own slightly-different implementations of the resulting prototype code. There is plainly a need for classes in JS, felt by some of the leading projects in JS land. ES6 classes at least gives all these disparate implementations a refactoring target. How many of them will get there is another matter.
  - smt88 11y ago
    > using them means a lot of self discipline regarding code style. That's bad. Few developers have self-discipline. The ones who do still have different rules than you do. That makes reading, understanding, and modifying their code harder. Sounds bad, doesn't it? There's a reason the most experienced devs rage against extremely flexible languages like PHP and JavaScript and are excited about new, ultra-rigid languages.
  - tel 11y ago
    > More flexible languages are better for writing DSLs, etc; Citation needed, or, I'm not quite sure I agree with you there. In fact, I think I believe the exact opposite (to a degree).
jbergens 11y ago
A lot of other languages makes you write a lot more code for some things that js can express very shortly. I usually find that the js version is more readable. The problem, I think, is that most programmers are used to class-based inheritance and not prototypical inheritance.

smt88 11y ago

It's possible to get power without flexibility. Flexibility is bad -- it creates code that is idiomatic to the person who wrote it. Rust and Go are so exciting because they've intentionally rejected flexibility without compromising power.

tragic 11y ago
Flexibility is not 'bad' - it's a tradeoff. More flexible languages are better for writing DSLs, etc; but using them means a lot of self discipline regarding code style. One thing I wish JS had is a PEP8-style canonical style document. I would find that more useful than classes. On classes, I am among the less excited about them; however, we are in a ridiculous situation where there are about 500 different library implementations of class inheritance. Backbone has one. Ember has one. Node has util.inherits. Various transpile-to-JS languages (CS, TS) all have their own slightly-different implementations of the resulting prototype code. There is plainly a need for classes in JS, felt by some of the leading projects in JS land. ES6 classes at least gives all these disparate implementations a refactoring target. How many of them will get there is another matter.
- smt88 11y ago
  > using them means a lot of self discipline regarding code style. That's bad. Few developers have self-discipline. The ones who do still have different rules than you do. That makes reading, understanding, and modifying their code harder. Sounds bad, doesn't it? There's a reason the most experienced devs rage against extremely flexible languages like PHP and JavaScript and are excited about new, ultra-rigid languages.
- tel 11y ago
  > More flexible languages are better for writing DSLs, etc; Citation needed, or, I'm not quite sure I agree with you there. In fact, I think I believe the exact opposite (to a degree).

jbergens 11y ago

A lot of other languages makes you write a lot more code for some things that js can express very shortly. I usually find that the js version is more readable. The problem, I think, is that most programmers are used to class-based inheritance and not prototypical inheritance.