On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 2011, at 5:58 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le 30/10/2011 02:35, Quildreen Motta a écrit : > >> (...) > >> > >>> Are we overthinking classes? > >> > >> Perhaps the reason for all this thinking about classes come from the > >> role constructor functions take in the language? I'm a bit sceptical > >> on constructors and constructor's own properties being that important, > >> though. > > I agree. Has anyone used constructor properties for "static" properties? > > Just considering the DOM, constants are put on the prototype and > > everyone sounds happy with it so far. > > > > In jQuery, John/we put "static" methods and properties on the jQuery() > function - this practice is used for anything that is not a selector match > operation. This includes Ajax and Deferred (among others). Considering > jQuery is used on >26.6million websites, it's safe to bet that practice is > in common use. > Would there be anything wrong with placing these "static methods" on the prototype? I presume there is also nothing wrong with placing DOM constants on the prototype? > Rick > > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
