>
>5. Re: How to fix the `class` keyword (Allen Wirfs-Brock)
>
> One of those possible enhancement that has been talked about is to
> implicitly treat a [[Call]] of a class constructor as an implicit 'new',
> just like you are suggesting.
>
Doesn't this need to be configurable, and Brendan Eic
>
>
> In case it helps, the idea mooted for ES7 is that you'd add a "call
> handler" to the class for when it is invoked without `new`:
>
> class Point2D {
> constructor(x, y) { this.x = x, this.y = y; }
> [Symbol.call](x, y) { return new this.constructor(x, y); }
> ...
> }
>
> I us
I've already posted this on my Medium blog here:
https://medium.com/@_ericelliott/how-to-fix-the-es6-class-keyword-2d42bb3f4caf
It seems inevitable that the `*class*` keyword in JavaScript is going to
catch on, but that’s a problem because it’s fundamentally broken in many
ways.
Now that it’s out
.com/
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:07 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 05/03/2014 09:24, Eric Elliott a écrit :
>
> What ever happened to Array.prototype.contains? There's an old strawman
> for Array.prototype.has (
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:array.prototype.
What ever happened to Array.prototype.contains? There's an old strawman for
Array.prototype.has (
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:array.prototype.has ) that
references this thread: (
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-February/020745.html )
But it seems the thread f
;
>> Also only works when you're switching on something with a meaningful
>> conversion to string.
>>
>
> On 20 Feb 2014, at 21:20, Eric Elliott wrote:
>
> > Object literals are already a great alternative to switch in JS:
> >
> > var cases = {
> &g
Object literals are already a great alternative to switch in JS:
var cases = {
val1: function () {},
val2: function () {}
};
cases[val]();
Fall through is more trouble than it's worth, IMO.
On Feb 17, 2014 1:44 PM, "Giacomo Cau" wrote:
> -Messaggio originale-
> From: Brendan Eic
iply inherited pieces. That skeleton doesn’t even have to be a
> hierarchy, it could be a set of classes.
> Maybe you simply need to write a mixin or trait library that works well
> with ES6 classes?
>
> Axel
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 0:22 , Eric Elliott wrote:
>
> "Honest
"Honest question: how can this problem not be solved via ES6 classes plus
mixins? The original hierarchy already feels wrong. Why not create a
super-class Animal, with sub-classes Human, Ape, Bird, Bee, Fish, Whale
plus the mixins Walking, Flying, Swimming?"
I completely agree with you, but in the
hat
motivates me to speak out about it.
- Eric
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2013, at 20:12 , Eric Elliott wrote:
>
> If I were advertising, there are better places to do it, and better ways.
> I feel like adding class to JS would be detriment
"JS is a rich language that allows different styles of programming. Nothing
wrong with that."
What's wrong is that when we give people `class` and `extends`, books and
blog posts everywhere will begin to teach that this is how we do
inheritance in JavaScript, ignoring all the perils that go with t
Brendan,
You seem to only be replying to the most recent comment in this thread, and
not considering the objections that I raised at the beginning of the
thread. My argument is that class isn't just a little bit of sugar. I
believe that counter to its goal, it will reduce programmer productivity b
> push it.
>
> On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:58, "Eric Elliott" wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Your response is extremely vague. It doesn't seem to say more than "I
> think you're wrong. Oh, and lots of other people think you're wrong too."
>
&g
ncestor class inheritance... so even if you start out using class
inheritance, it can be problematic to switch to mixins and similar
strategies down the road.
- Eric
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> Le 29 juin 2013 à 00:14, Eric Elliott a écrit :
>
>
2) Have you watched the talk? https://vimeo.com/69255635
3) Are there specific points that you disagree with?
- Eric
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
> On 28 Jun 2013 19:31, "Eric Elliott" wrote:
> >
> > I'm not here to discuss the mechanics
irony.
>
> The one thing that saved us from dread of *OMG we have to re-visit
> everything* has been reliance on unit tests - test-driven-development, or
> test-during-development really does reduce the fear of later confusion -
> but that's another discussion entirely.
>
>
o, the problem is when people limit the way they think about software
through this only one paradigm. If this paradigm is here alongside others,
I don't see the problem. People have the choice."
JavaScript is confusing enough to people without adding `class`. Sometimes
giving people more ch
n't with Backbone's particular implementation. I had the same
problems in C++, Java, and with John Resig's Simple Inheritance in
JavaScript.
The problem isn't with the ES6 implementation. It's the whole paradigm.
- Eric
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David Bru
om/2013/02/fluent-javascript-three-different-kinds-of-prototypal-oo/
Different author, similar message -
http://davidwalsh.name/javascript-objects (3 parts)
- Eric Elliott
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Eric Elliott wrote:
> &g
t it because you don't
have time to watch a video, I guess the conversation is over. =)
- Eric
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Eric Elliott wrote:
> > I know this has been batted around already. I know everybody's totally
I know this has been batted around already. I know everybody's totally
stoked about class sugar in ES6. I just wanted to register my protest. I
made my arguments in this talk at Fluent:
http://ericleads.com/2013/06/classical-inheritance-is-obsolete-how-to-think-in-prototypal-oo/
I'm already seein
21 matches
Mail list logo
