On Jul 6, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
This point disturbs me. Making classes frozen solves no existing JS programmer problems, introduces new restrictions with no mind paid to the current (useful) patterns of WRT the prototype chain, and introduces the need for a const that only seems there to make some weird security use-cases work. And I say that with all sympathy to weird language features and the security concerns in question.Why should this stuff be the default?
What Mark said, I agree completely with his post: "this stuff" is *not* "the default" -- function as constructor is the default, and no one is salting that syntax. So why are you against sugar for high- integrity programmers? It's not as if those weirdos will take over the world, right?
If you're worried that the 'class' keyword will hypnotize the masses into locking things down overmuch, then you don't trust the masses very much. They'll mostly avoid new stuff, and any who get burned by inability to monkey-patch (which is *not* an unmixed blessing) will retreat, and probably start a "don't use 'class'" movement.
This is not 'final' in Java (which pace Mark, I believe was overused, including in the standard library, but which also has different enough semantics that I wouldn't drag it in here as a precedent. We're talking about sugar for ES3 and ES5 facilities already implemented, or nearly implemented. There was no such underlying metaprogramming API prefiguring final in Java, AFAIK.
There should be sugar for high- and low-integrity programmers, and then they can get back to their standoff. :-/
/be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
