Hi Richard,
Thanks for that.
I like the terseness and clarity of this.base() although I'd have
concerns about that making it difficult for people to retrofit their
classes ("base" being a fairly common word). I do _not_ mean that I
think "callSuper" is a great name; I don't and I expect suggestions
like yours to result in a better name. But something unlikely to
clash makes it simpler for people to do a global search-and-replace to
convert $super(...) to this.niftyNameHere(arguments, ...). Even in a
large project, that should be a 10-minute exercise.
Agreed that both mechanisms can co-exist, except that I -- perhaps
unreasonably -- find running all of the subclass methods through
Function#toString at definition time ugly. But you're right, once
deprecated the old $super could be supported for a dot rev or so to
ease transition.
I meant to mention in my earlier post that once implementations have a
native Function#bind (which I'm sure everyone knows is in the latest
ECMA draft specs), presumably the cost of that bind-on-each-method-
call would go down, though I suspect it will never reduce to zero.
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com
On Sep 4, 1:53 pm, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey gang,
>
> I took a look at this issue a while ago, in a blog post that generated a
> fair bit of discussion and spin off investigations
> (seehttp://www.google.com/search?q=inheritance+performance+javascript) so I'll
> try to weigh in. However I'm in the middle of an extended road trip, so I
> don't have the time/resources necessary to give this proper attention...
>
> http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance- JQ's swipe at this
> problem. Definitely read through the comments. Your approach appears
> similar to his (which is based on Dean Edward's Base2). Dean uses
> this.base(), instead of this.callSuper(), fwiw. no strong opinions there,
> although this.base() seems a bit more "prototype-like" in it's terseness.
>
> The performance tests I did for Base2 (see the broofa.com article in the
> google search above) are probably a good first-guess at the performance your
> approach will have compared to other techniques.
>
> Technically this doesn't break backward compatibility - $super and
> this.callSuper() can coexist as dual techniques for doing inheritance,
> correct? We just need to decide if $super support will continue in P2.
>
> ... and, finally, I vaguely recall people raising some interesting edge
> cases. But I don't remember where I saw those. *sigh*.
>
> - rwk
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
