Let me introduce myself before responding in particular. I work at Palm on
the Mojo application framework, which includes Prototype as part of its
interface and implementation.

I'll post a second message explaining how it is we came to include
Prototype, but I don't want to hijack this thread for that.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Mislav Marohnić
<mislav.maroh...@gmail.com>wrote:

> What I want is the community's opinion on augmenting native prototypes:
> Number, Function, Event etc. Is it good/bad? Is this what makes you happy
> while writing code?
>

The opinion of the people working on Mojo at Palm as well as our internal
application developers is that extending native prototypes indeed makes us
happy.

One example is the bind() method on Function. Mojo requires application
developers to create a certain number of objects whose methods are likely to
be used as callbacks, and bind() is invaluable for establishing the "this'
keyword in those cases. It would not improve matters at all to have to call
Prototype.Function.bind(this.handleRequest, this) rather than
this.handleRequest.bind(this).

Even if there were an option to run Prototype in a namespace and have it not
extend native prototypes, I doubt we would enable it for Mojo. If we did,
we'd have to make all the code in the framework avoid depending on the
prototypes and use the namespaces, and I don't the what that would do to
code clarity in the framework would be worth the theoretical compatibility.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to