On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, David. > > First, I'd like to point out that in the blog post I'm putting on the hat > of a library author (I happen to be one, but that's beside the point). > > One of the first conclusions that I come to (as a library author) is that > the idiom described here: > > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_extension_literal_class_pattern > > provides a worse user experience than what I already have. The goal post > for any class syntax or idiom is not this: > > function Blah() > Blah.prototype = Object.create(BaseClass.prototype); > Blah.prototype.a = function() {}; > Blah.prototype.b = function() {}; > > It is rather this: > > var MyClass = new Class({ > extends: BaseClass, > a: function() {}, > b: function() {} > }); > > And in the post I conclude fairly early on that the "object extension > literal class pattern" described above does not meet or exceed this goal > post, not by a long shot. > +1, agreed, not by a long shot > > Now, if object literal extensions were such that I could use them in a > "class" library (any class library), then that would be fine. But as > indicated in the post, they cannot. The full advantages to be derived from > object literal extensions with respect to class construction are > *unbreakably bound* to the <| operator. > > As such <| does not fill in missing low-level pieces of the puzzle, so > much as dictate how higher level abstractions must be built. I cannot > build a higher level class abstraction from fundamentals without leaking > the implementation of that abstraction. > > The answer cannot be that I ought not build higher level abstractions. > > If the answer is that we'll have a class syntax, then great. But then we > have to ask the related question, should "super" et. all defined on the > object literal level? And do we even need special <| or .{} syntax, then? > > Again, thanks David for reading and replying. I have great respect for > everyone's ideas, and I'm just trying to fully explore this one. > I am also a library author, and *yes* I've also created yet another class abstraction (seemed like a good idea at the time, 5 years ago) and I have to say, I totally agree. As much as I want to take advantage of <|, its just not good enough at the high or the low level. Because it has to take a literal on the RHS, it can't be used inside a class abstraction library, and because its still so imperative, its not very good at the high level. I think the people that will really be able to take advantage of this will be language designers that target JS. CoffeeScript could probably put this to good use. - Russ > > kevin > > _______________________________________________ > 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
