For one specific example, plain objects can be treated like C structs. For most scenarios you'd want "methods", you could get away just as easily with functions taking the instance as an argument (in particular, you could still use `this`, although I don't in practice).
I've used this pattern quite a bit when I have a bit of state that needs accessed in several places, but actions are more easily encapsulated. This isn't as elegant for things like DSLs, but it's useful for more stateful programming. ----- Isiah Meadows [email protected] Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? Send me an email and we can get started. www.isiahmeadows.com On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> wrote: > Javascript won't lose plain objects. Classes simplify cases of type > hierarchies that require overriden methods, and offer a memory performance > gain in the case of when there are many instances vs using plain objects to > do the same (which incurs a memory overhead for each instance's functions > even when they are the same as each other). The only encapsulated way of > doing this before ES6 was to use prototype, which is easier to get wrong > especially if there is more than two levels of depth of method inheritance. > > You get to chose what works for you. You can even argue for using plain > objects in certain cases where somebody has decided to use classes. That has > nothing to do with what the language offers for those whose applications are > simpler and more performant using classes instead. > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 at 03:31 Frederick Stark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I appreciate hearing Kai's point of view and think that we've had this >> exact discussion enough times. At this point it just adds to inbox weight >> without changing any minds >> >> On Dec 18 2017, at 8:23 am, Terence M. Bandoian <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I appreciate hearing Kai's point of view and don't think he should be >>> silenced. >>> >>> -Terence Bandoian >>> >>> >>> On 12/17/2017 2:03 PM, T.J. Crowder wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Adding features in *no way* sacrifices simplicity or ease-of-use >>> > for smaller web projects; as has been said many times on this >>> > list, if you don't like any new feature, simply choose not to use >>> > it. >>> >>> And in many or even most cases, markedly *improves* simplicity and >>> ease-of-use. As has also been repeatedly pointed out. >>> >>> Kai: Genuine questions are fine. Questions which are really just you >>> pushing your agenda of "don't change anything ever again" and your personal >>> -- and solitary -- claim that "all this new stuff makes life difficult for >>> people" are, at best, pointless. Your position has been made crystal clear. >>> There's no need to bang on about it. >>> >>> -- T.J. Crowder >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
