1) The ES6 class pattern makes abstractions whose .prototype is an ordinary object. This change makes the builtin abstractions more consistent with class-based abstractions, minimizing surprise for future JS programmers who learn the language at ES6 or later.
2) From a security perspective, the one ES5 builtin abstraction that opened a global communications channel through .prototype was Date, since Date.prototype was a Date instance, and Date instances have mutable state which remains observably mutable after Object.freeze. With the addition of RegExp.prototype.compile, RegExp joins the set of problematic ES5 abstractions. Neither of these argue against making Array.prototype specifically be an Array instance. I prefer that it not be on esthetic grounds only, and am willing to switch given evidence. I concede that Kyle's book is sufficient evidence. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Michał Wadas <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there a good reason behind making prototypes ordinary objects? > > On the margin - I would assume Array.empty to be static method to clean > array. > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
