Using static methods with plain objects can be cool if you don't want method overriding and/or inheritance. Otherwise using classes and methods makes that simpler to accomplish.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 at 20:53 Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
