Robert, I use super heavily in many of my applications and it isn't something trivial to just add it on to prototype's class. I would be very against it. As long as it is clearly documented then I don't see a problem. I spend a good deal of time in #prototype and a majority of the questions are around selector's or the AJAX stuff. From my experience most newbies don't even use Class.
Allen Madsen http://www.allenmadsen.com On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Robert Kieffer<bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 8, 8:44 am, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote: >> arguments.callee.$super.call(this, arg); >> this.callSuper(arguments, arg); > > "six of one, half-dozen of the other"... but I suppose there is no > perfect solution. Still, it's hard to swallow something this > convoluted when you've gotten used to $super (or this._super() ) :-P > >> My issue with Resig's approach would be the number of introduced >> closures and the slippery _super method, which has too much magic in >> it for my taste. These things are subjective. It also won't perform >> as well, but we're talking a small increment, and as you say trade- >> offs come into play. > > I have to confess it's been long enough since I looked at that code > that I don't have an opinion about it. I do know that it performance > tested well, and I definitely prefer the invocation syntax. > > Honestly, at this point I'm mostly worried that that we may get > enamored with a solution that is different, but not necessarily all > that much "better". More performant, yes, but at the cost of > usability. I'm tempted, even, to argue for the removal of supermethod > invocation altogether in Prototype. It's not like it actually needs > it - there are a couple places where $super is used, but it would be > trivial to rewrite that to where it's not necessary. Developers would > benefit from a smaller Prototype codebase, and they code pick and > choose the supermethod technique that best met their needs, and import > the appropriate script for that. > > That notion is both heretical and ironic I suppose, since I guess I > started the whole "look how shitty Prototype supermethod performance > is!" thread. But history has taught me that developers who write code > without having a concrete use for it very rarely make the right > choices. It's much better to let requirements drive the code choices, > rather than the other way around. > > Okay, climbing down off my soapbox now to go get lunch. :-) > > - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
