JS is Object Oriented. So are we really just talking about classical inheritance (and even more specific, _super) ?
I see how widget.js creates a plugin. But how does one expand on the plugin? I'm more than happy with widget.js if you can easily expand on the widget. For example, quickly added a delegated hoverenter that will show a tooltip, or change an existing function. I don't think super is necessary at all. I've only used it a few times, never needed it. But if you let go of _super, and you are able to easily expand the widget, how is that different than what you are considering OOP? On Feb 24, 1:22 pm, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Quick comments: > > > On OOP and not being convinced. What other approaches are you hinting > > at? OOP being well understood is a valid argument only because > > inheritance and OO does provide reuse. If you have something that > > does work in many cases, you are allowed to factor in popularity and > > understandability. > > For example, the widget plugin that I pointed to. I keep talking about > it so I'll just link to it > again:http://dev.jquery.com/~john/plugins/widget/widget.js > > This is a case where many of the problems (or complexities) that exist > in advanced jQuery plugins are already taken care of: extensibility, > encapsulation, and reusability. > > I consider this to be a good example of introducing a selective piece > of jQuery functionality that'll help developers but without doing a > wholesale import of OOP techniques. > > > Why do you think this would contribute to jQuery bloat anymore than > > jQuery.UI does? > > Because jQuery UI isn't, or doesn't, have the ability to become a > dependency for nearly every plugin created. As I mentioned before, > most developers look at the tool of Classes as the be-all and end-all > of development patterns. Introducing that in a sanctioned manner will > instantly make it a dependency of countless plugins, at which point we > would be required to include it in core, out of necessity. It seems > like it would be a much better option to produce a plugin/widget > construction utility that solves all the problems that advanced jQuery > developers encounter, in a style that meshes well with the jQuery > philosophy, rather than a wholesale import of OOP concepts. > > --John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
