On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:21 PM, T.J. Crowder <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
> > >             arguments.callee.$super.call(this, arg);
> > >             this.callSuper(arguments, arg);
> >
> > "six of one, half-dozen of the other"...
> Um, "this.callSuper(arguments, arg)" (or "this.callSuper(nifty, arg)")
> is precisely *one* argument more than Resig's "this._super(arg)", but
> without the cost of the closures and unnecessary, misleading (IMV)
> magic.  It's a lot clearer than the raw syntax needed with anonymous
> functions.  "Six of one, half-dozen of the other" seems a bit harsh.

I apologize, I was being glib (hence the quotes.)  But there is a grain of
truth there.  Both these incantations are unintuitive in their own way.

callSuper may have only one more argument but it's a wierd one for sure.
Especially for developers unfamiliar with 'arguments' and its 'callee'
property.  Many devs will treat this as yet another piece of JS voodoo code
they have to remember - "you do it just because".  And what if the super
method takes different arguments than the sub method, "Wait a minute, why am
I passing an array with 'foo' & 'bar' in it, when I only want to hand 'baz'
to the supermethod?"

> 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...
> That's interesting.  I started down this road precisely because I
> found the existing API flawed;

Was it the API you found flawed, or the implementation of that API?  I think
the $super argument is a rather elegant solution.  Non-standard, sure, and
lacking performance, but conceptually elegant.  In essence: "If you need to
access $super, just pass it to yourself as the first argument."  It's easy
to remember, and hard to screw up.

I didn't realize you'd done a "crappy performance in supercalls"
> thrread (I was away from this group for a while).  I'd seen the
> excellent work you did with curried and bound functions, though, and
> I'm glad to hear that will be finding its way into 1.6.1.

It wasn't a thread in this group but, rather, the blog post I did a while
back that got some attention on Ajaxian.com and that other folks ran with
for a bit on their own blogs:


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to