On 7/19/06, Ryan Gahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, that is far from clean, much less cleaner than prototype. You mean init as in like, a consistently named constructor across classes? So if I look at class y, and class x I can easily see which method is the constructor for the class, and you mean to say that's, like, unclean?
It should be fairly easy to see the constructor. It is the function with the a capital letter and the name of the class you wish to instantiate. This is how JavaScript works. Using init adds an unnecessary layer used when a developer doesn't know how to chain prototypes correctly. Java has a way of initializing objects. It is using the constructor. Use it.
Are you serious?
Yes I am absolutely 100% serious. It makes good sense to use the JavaScript constructor function to do what it was intended to do: construct objects. The extend function make it convienient to then chain the prototypes and constructors with minimal effort.
Just say "I prefer procedural programming over object oriented, and thus like other libs over proto because I don't need clean consistent class based object oriented js code"
This is opposite to how I feel. I like OOP just fine. The link I provided shows how effective the extend function is to emulate class-based inheritance in JavaScript doing it the most tidy JavaScript way. Peter _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
