I see, so it's not that you can't do things without class as much as you can impose limitations by using class. Thanks for clarifying
Le lun. 23 juill. 2018 18 h 49, Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> a écrit : > When extending builtins, `super()` is the only way you can get the > appropriate internal slots applied to the instance. (Private fields work > the same way by providing a matching guarantee - that the only way someone > can subclass you successfully is using `class extends` and `super`) > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ben Wiley <therealbenwi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> What exactly can be accomplished with super that can't be accomplished >> otherwise? I know the transpiled code is very verbose and unintuitive to >> read if you avoid explicitly naming the base class, but I wasn't aware of >> new capabilities that were previously impossible. >> >> Ben >> >> >> Le lun. 23 juill. 2018 18 h 06, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> Granted about `super()`. That's the one thing I can't easily reproduce. >>> However, barring those internal slots, I can reproduce the functionality of >>> `super` and the checks performed as a result of the internal slots, all in >>> ES6. As for built-ins, I can easily and properly extend builtins without >>> `class` since ES6 officially has `Object.setPrototypeOf()`. If you don't >>> think it's possible, you should take a close look at what I'm doing in the >>> repl.it link from my first post. >>> >>> As for whether or not the sugary nature of `class` is a good thing, it >>> really is a matter of opinion. I just happen to be of the persuasion that >>> since there's literally no construct that `class` can produce that I cannot >>> reproduce by other means, then that means the `class` keyword (even in >>> light of `super`) is little more than syntactic sugar. As such, we >>> shouldn't be so hasty to turn an Object Oriented Prototype Based language >>> into an Object Oriented Class Based language. The only way to do that >>> reasonably is to ensure that whatever you can construct with `class` can >>> always be equivalently constructed without it. >>> >>> Here's a more logical argument instead. Even if there are subtle >>> differences between `class` constructors and object factory functions, >>> providing an isolated path specific to `class` is likely to lead to >>> situations very similar to what happens when an open source package gets >>> forked. Eventually, the difference between the two paths may become so >>> great that one is eventually abandoned (by developers) in favor of the >>> other. This is only a valid argument because the power of ES is in it's >>> simplicity. It's like building a house with wood, nails, sheetrock, etc... >>> (JS) vs. building a house with pre-fabricated parts (class-based languages). >>> >>> Don't get me wrong. The `class` keyword is a great thing. It simplifies >>> the production of creating object factories with prototypes. As I >>> understand it, that was the purpose. Let's not make the mistake of allowing >>> something to be done with `class` that cannot be reasonably reproduced >>> without it. The moment we do that, we're diverging from the intended >>> purpose of `class`. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:17 PM Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Extend builtins, in particular - ie, `super()` allows your subclass to >>>> obtain internal slots it can't otherwise get. >>>> >>>> Even if `class` were just sugar, I don't think I see the argument that >>>> that's a *good* thing to preserve. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> >>>>> Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: proposal: Object Members >>>>> To: <ljh...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You've made that argument before. Exactly what is it in ES6 that you >>>>> **can** do with `class` that you cannot do without class? I'd like some >>>>> clarification on this. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:30 PM Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> `class` is already not just syntactic sugar, so that notion isn't >>>>>> correct, and shouldn't be maintained. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've written up a new draft proposal based on my own work with ES5 & >>>>>>> ES6 compatible classes with fields. That can be found [here]( >>>>>>> https://github.com/rdking/proposal-object-members). I'm already >>>>>>> aware of the class-members proposal, but I think it breaks far to many >>>>>>> things and doesn't do anything to maintain the notion that "`class` is >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> syntactic sugar". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This proposal is specifically based on the code [here]( >>>>>>> https://github.com/rdking/Class.js/tree/master/es6c). I've also got >>>>>>> a [repl.it](https://repl.it/@arkain/Classjs-Compact-Syntax-ES6) >>>>>>> that shows the same code running. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea behind the proposal is that instead of injecting a lot of >>>>>>> new logic into how `class` works, let's allow `class` to remain >>>>>>> syntactic >>>>>>> sugar, and put that extra ability into object declarations instead. Then >>>>>>> simply allow `class` to do the same with it's own prototypes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
