What exactly can be accomplished with super that can't be accomplished otherwise? I know the transpiled code is very verbose and unintuitive to read if you avoid explicitly naming the base class, but I wasn't aware of new capabilities that were previously impossible.
Ben Le lun. 23 juill. 2018 18 h 06, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Granted about `super()`. That's the one thing I can't easily reproduce. > However, barring those internal slots, I can reproduce the functionality of > `super` and the checks performed as a result of the internal slots, all in > ES6. As for built-ins, I can easily and properly extend builtins without > `class` since ES6 officially has `Object.setPrototypeOf()`. If you don't > think it's possible, you should take a close look at what I'm doing in the > repl.it link from my first post. > > As for whether or not the sugary nature of `class` is a good thing, it > really is a matter of opinion. I just happen to be of the persuasion that > since there's literally no construct that `class` can produce that I cannot > reproduce by other means, then that means the `class` keyword (even in > light of `super`) is little more than syntactic sugar. As such, we > shouldn't be so hasty to turn an Object Oriented Prototype Based language > into an Object Oriented Class Based language. The only way to do that > reasonably is to ensure that whatever you can construct with `class` can > always be equivalently constructed without it. > > Here's a more logical argument instead. Even if there are subtle > differences between `class` constructors and object factory functions, > providing an isolated path specific to `class` is likely to lead to > situations very similar to what happens when an open source package gets > forked. Eventually, the difference between the two paths may become so > great that one is eventually abandoned (by developers) in favor of the > other. This is only a valid argument because the power of ES is in it's > simplicity. It's like building a house with wood, nails, sheetrock, etc... > (JS) vs. building a house with pre-fabricated parts (class-based languages). > > Don't get me wrong. The `class` keyword is a great thing. It simplifies > the production of creating object factories with prototypes. As I > understand it, that was the purpose. Let's not make the mistake of allowing > something to be done with `class` that cannot be reasonably reproduced > without it. The moment we do that, we're diverging from the intended > purpose of `class`. > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:17 PM Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Extend builtins, in particular - ie, `super()` allows your subclass to >> obtain internal slots it can't otherwise get. >> >> Even if `class` were just sugar, I don't think I see the argument that >> that's a *good* thing to preserve. >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM >>> Subject: Re: proposal: Object Members >>> To: <ljh...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> You've made that argument before. Exactly what is it in ES6 that you >>> **can** do with `class` that you cannot do without class? I'd like some >>> clarification on this. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:30 PM Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> `class` is already not just syntactic sugar, so that notion isn't >>>> correct, and shouldn't be maintained. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've written up a new draft proposal based on my own work with ES5 & >>>>> ES6 compatible classes with fields. That can be found [here]( >>>>> https://github.com/rdking/proposal-object-members). I'm already aware >>>>> of the class-members proposal, but I think it breaks far to many things >>>>> and >>>>> doesn't do anything to maintain the notion that "`class` is just syntactic >>>>> sugar". >>>>> >>>>> This proposal is specifically based on the code [here]( >>>>> https://github.com/rdking/Class.js/tree/master/es6c). I've also got a >>>>> [repl.it](https://repl.it/@arkain/Classjs-Compact-Syntax-ES6) that >>>>> shows the same code running. >>>>> >>>>> The idea behind the proposal is that instead of injecting a lot of new >>>>> logic into how `class` works, let's allow `class` to remain syntactic >>>>> sugar, and put that extra ability into object declarations instead. Then >>>>> simply allow `class` to do the same with it's own prototypes. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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
