> That's all neat in a kind of desugaring ftw, nerdcore way, but tl;dr -- users > don't care and they want to write new C and have it just work (mostly; > granted some crack the code, for a few good and bad purposes).
Note that I am arguing from the perspective of a language that only has PaCs, versus a language that only has constructor functions. If you don’t, then we don’t disagree. You argue that constructor functions are more intuitive at the user level (to *all* people) and that PaCs wouldn’t “just work” and that’s what I disagree with. With either new Constructor(x,y) or with new Prototype(x,y) there are things you leave out (abstract away from). It is a matter of preference what those things should be: (1) let o = new Constructor(x,y): hides/obscures the fact that the new instance has the prototype Constructor.prototype. (2) let o = new Prototype(x,y): hides the fact that method constructor() is called. > Anyway, the die was cast long ago. I agree that this might be one of those cases where the cost of breaking compatibility is not worth the benefits (especially if we even can’t agree that there are benefits ;-) -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] twitter.com/rauschma home: rauschma.de blog: 2ality.com _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
