Herby Vojčík wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
In a few words, with class and constructor separated, you can specify
what object should represent the class
Why? Where are the use-cases driving this, which goes beyond class as
constructor function that can be called as well as new'ed?
This question is unfair: no one have "use cases" for this, when it was
not possible at all in the language.
Nothing's unfair about designing by use-cases, and that's how a lot of
the Web standards roll. Notorious counter-examples have gone off the
rails by doing otherwise, but I won't try to sum of the problems so
simplistically. Nevertheless, we need use-cases, preferably ones already
approximated by library code or transpilers.
I'd ask the contrary*: what are the use case of tying class with its
own constructor function?
Designing means saying "no" and leaving things out (N. Wirth, IIRC).
That's point #1.
JS already has the prototypal pattern with constructor function as
"class", and that's what Harmony (now ES6) classes sugar. Point #2.
Stopping here. See my other reply on path dependency if you haven't yet.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
