On Dec 19, 2017 01:36, "Naveen Chawla" <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Using static methods with plain objects can be cool if you don't want method overriding and/or inheritance. Otherwise using classes and methods makes that simpler to accomplish.
@naveen, have you tried adding asynchronous features (e.g. typeahead search or typeahead input-validation) to a frontend-ui that primarily relied on classes? you generally cannot implement these features like you would for BLOCKING code (as taught in college cs) by simply updating a class-method or two. in practice, you oftentimes have to rewrite the entire class to accomodate a "simple" ui feature-request that changed the async data-flow. classes normally end up being a non-reusable pile of async-hacks as a frontend-ui evolves, which makes them no better than writing throwaway static-functions from the start. at least there's no pretension for re-usability when writing throwaway static-functions, with the more realistic expectation they will be constantly re-written as async-feature-request get added. > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 at 20:53 Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For one specific example, plain objects can be treated like C structs. >> For most scenarios you'd want "methods", you could get away just as >> easily with functions taking the instance as an argument (in >> particular, you could still use `this`, although I don't in practice). >> >> I've used this pattern quite a bit when I have a bit of state that >> needs accessed in several places, but actions are more easily >> encapsulated. This isn't as elegant for things like DSLs, but it's >> useful for more stateful programming. >> ----- >> >> Isiah Meadows >> m...@isiahmeadows.com >> >> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? >> Send me an email and we can get started. >> www.isiahmeadows.com >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Javascript won't lose plain objects. Classes simplify cases of type >> > hierarchies that require overriden methods, and offer a memory performance >> > gain in the case of when there are many instances vs using plain objects to >> > do the same (which incurs a memory overhead for each instance's functions >> > even when they are the same as each other). The only encapsulated way of >> > doing this before ES6 was to use prototype, which is easier to get wrong >> > especially if there is more than two levels of depth of method inheritance. >> > >> > You get to chose what works for you. You can even argue for using plain >> > objects in certain cases where somebody has decided to use classes. That has >> > nothing to do with what the language offers for those whose applications are >> > simpler and more performant using classes instead. >> > >> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 at 03:31 Frederick Stark <coagm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I appreciate hearing Kai's point of view and think that we've had this >> >> exact discussion enough times. At this point it just adds to inbox weight >> >> without changing any minds >> >> >> >> On Dec 18 2017, at 8:23 am, Terence M. Bandoian <tere...@tmbsw.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I appreciate hearing Kai's point of view and don't think he should be >> >>> silenced. >> >>> >> >>> -Terence Bandoian >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 12/17/2017 2:03 PM, T.J. Crowder wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Adding features in *no way* sacrifices simplicity or ease-of-use >> >>> > for smaller web projects; as has been said many times on this >> >>> > list, if you don't like any new feature, simply choose not to use >> >>> > it. >> >>> >> >>> And in many or even most cases, markedly *improves* simplicity and >> >>> ease-of-use. As has also been repeatedly pointed out. >> >>> >> >>> Kai: Genuine questions are fine. Questions which are really just you >> >>> pushing your agenda of "don't change anything ever again" and your personal >> >>> -- and solitary -- claim that "all this new stuff makes life difficult for >> >>> people" are, at best, pointless. Your position has been made crystal clear. >> >>> There's no need to bang on about it. >> >>> >> >>> -- T.J. Crowder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> es-discuss mailing list >> >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> es-discuss mailing list >> >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > es-discuss mailing list >> > es-discuss@mozilla.org >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
