On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:37 AM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-11-22, at 23:54EST, Peter Michaux wrote: > >>> >>> let privClassVar = 1; >>> const privClassConst = -1; >> >> So members are private by default? I like that and it is consistent >> with a style of JavaScript OOP popular today. In the wiki page members >> are public by default which is as dangerous as implied globals (i.e. a >> missing "var") in ES3. > > My 2p: I feel just the opposite. Conflating classes (OOP) with access > control is a big mistake in my book, a big mistake made by Java that we > ought to learn from. It leads you to either write really huge classes, or > to have to 'decorate' all your classes with public declarations.
Why do private members cause "really huge classes"? > Access > control should have its own orthogonal mechanism -- modules or packages that > can consist of one or more classes and can gather the access control > declarations in one spot so they are easily analyzed, as opposed to > scattering them over all the component classes. If access control for a class member was not written with that class member, then it would mean a lot of hunting around the code to determine if a member is public or private. That seems like a recipe for trouble to me. It reminds me of some aspect oriented programming where hunting and gathering is necessary to determine if a filter is being applied to a particular method or not. That is a lot of hard work and something I've worked to avoid at all costs. Peter _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
