>>> I guess >>> every JS dev is puzzled by .prototype already. >>> Compared to a class >>> language, it seems like a hack. Do we really need it? >> >> I can't tell if this is sarcasm... Ive long held that prototypes are the >> next evolutionary step up from classes - developers need to evolve now as >> well. Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning? > > > I agree with the prototype property of functions being a bit odd. I don’t > agree with prototypes being difficult to understand, I find them very elegant > (but that doesn’t seem to be what he is saying). I certainly don’t agree that > class(-based) languages are easier to understand. It’s the opposite: Always > having to create a class to create an object is opposed to how humans think: > You don’t start with the abstract, you start with the specific. Self has > demonstrated very well that prototype-based inheritance can be very intuitive.
Addendum: You should see the assertion at the beginning in context of the last sentence of the email is is quoted from: > I'd love to see a riff on Gozala's selfish with the declarative > approach. Maybe the gap is too large. I agree with that (and this last sentence is a bit at odds with the “class language” comparison). -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
