On Nov 26, 2011, at 3:55 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 26/11/2011 01:52, David Bruant a écrit :
>>
>> Le 24/11/2011 22:29, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
>>>
>>> 2011/11/24 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>
>>> At the core is a root question whether we want to expose a functional or
>>> object-oriented API for reflection functionality.
>>> (...)
> I realize what that sentence meant yesterday, very late. And I realized also
> that all what Tom said was legitimate. A Mirror style API ("an
> object-oriented API") can be built on top of the Reflect API ("a functional
> API" as I understand it). The opposite it true, but comes with an overhead.
> Maybe in the future, it will be possible to optimize expressions like
> "Mirror.on(object).has('bla')" (used to implement Reflect.has('bla') if the
> Mirror style API is used), but it will always require some additional
> analysis. The opposite is not true.
>
> Consequently, regarding the built-in implementation, I would favor a
> functional API as well, unless the mirror API has advantages I am oblivious
> to.
I'm with you. JS has first class functions *and* objects, it is not an OOP-only
or OOP-first language. The (dead? nearly) hand of Java weighed heavily on some
parts, and methods make sense in many cases, but the cost of temporary objects
shouldn't be imposed if a functional API at the lowest level suffices.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
