On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
> Let me take a crack at tying to tie together all the pieces we have been > talking about. > > Allen, I really appreciate your synthesis, thanks. I am able to follow some of it because of my recent Q/A with the group. I think many more people would be able to follow it if the approximate semantics of new features where readily accessible. Maybe just an parenthetical explanation and a link to the strawman page (these are pretty daunting however). <lots of interesting text elided> > > This is a more complicated tory then simply having a traditional class > model such as Dart is using. However, we have an existing language with > existing featuures with a wide range of usages patterns so whatever we do > with "classes" we still have to accommodate what currently exists in JS. We > are never going to have as simple a story as a do-over language such as > Dart. But I do think we can craft a understandable story where all the > pieces fit together relatively nicely. > I really like this perspective, with two caveats: 1) To achieve the goal of "Keep the language pleasant for casual developers.", the correspondence between JS and traditional class models needs to be real, clear, and communicated well. Points of disconnect need to be ironed out. The danger of saying "class" and meaning something different are great but the dangers of saying Grawlix include no one caring about the meaning. 2) Your proposal is dominated by declarative syntax for objects, in contrast to practice which uses functions to construct objects. Of course it is possible that your new features would obsolete that practice, but I doubt it. By design the declarative syntax creates limits on objects that are simple to overcome with direct manipulation. jjb >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
