On 01/11/11 22:18, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 31, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
'Evening, ES-Discuss.
After poking a stick in the bees' nest this morning (apologies,
Allen), and in the spirit of loyal opposition, it's only fair that I
throw my hat in the ring.
Here is a proposal for minimalist JavaScript classes that enable
behavior that JavaScripters today desire (as evidenced by libraries
and languages galore), without adding any new semantics beyond what
already exists in ES3.
https://gist.github.com/1329619
Let me know what you think, and feel free to fork.
Thanks, I did fork, and I made a Rich Corinthian Leather version, for
the reasons given in the comments. In brief, I contend that
over-minimizing will please no one: class haters still gonna hate,
while class lovers used to batteries-and-leather-included will find
the bare sheet metal poky and painful.
Love it or hate it, I'm ok either way :-P. But I do crave intelligent
responses.
/be
I like how clean the syntax is there, Brendan. I still feel class syntax
would have more value if they presented a nice way for object
composition besides inheritance.
None the less, I think we could well get rid of those `var' inside the
class-body, as long as it's not executable:
https://gist.github.com/1332633
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
