Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

[Anthony Ziebell]

Hello, Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you to submit edits to this article. "Prototype-based programming is a style of object-oriented programming in which classes are not present, and behavior reuse (known as inheritance in class-based languages) is performed via a process of cloning existing objects that serve as prototypes. This model can also be known as class-less, prototype-oriented or instance-based programming." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming "The most common criticism made against prototype-based languages is that the community of software developers is not familiar with them, despite the popularity and market permeation of _javascript_. This knowledge level of prototype based systems seems to be changing with the proliferation of _javascript_ frameworks and increases in the complex use of _javascript_ as "Web 2.0" matures." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming#Criticism Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Breton, There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented programming. Yes you say that, but you never go into any detail about it. In what way in particular is the concept and use of "objects" independant from "object orient programming". Did the concept of "objects" *not* come from smalltalk, the original OOP language? Can you cite any occurance of the concept of an "object" in programming that predates smalltalk? Do you then, think it's therefore possible to create a language with Objects that is not in any way inspired by, or derivative of smalltalk? Because honestly, I'm confused about where you think the concept of OOP came from to begin with. Coad / Yourdon suggests object-oriented being classes and objects, inheritance and communication with messages. Does _javascript_ have classes? Can inheritance of _javascript_ occur without prototype? Those are typical elements in OOP languages, yes, and they all existed in the original smalltalk. Are you suggesting that any slight deviation from small talk renders a language completely not OOP? If that were the case, you would pretty much have to rule out any language that was not smalltalk itself. But let's assume you have a less extreme position. What is your methodology to determine how far a language can deviate from smalltalk before it is no longer OOP? You seem fixated on the concept of classical inheritence being essential for a language to be OOP, but this is contradicted by the existance of numerous OOP languages that do not have classes. How do you account for this? _javascript_ in fact, does have classes, but not as a mechanism of inheritence. _javascript_'s inheritence is prototypal. You seem to be suggesting that this makes it not OOP. I would like to suggest that if this makes _javascript_ not OOP, then you would have to say that a dozen other OOP langauges are also not OOP. The choice of class as a defining characteristic of OOP seems arbitrary. If you can suggest that any arbitrary deviation, such as class, from smalltalk makes a language not OOP, then C++ and JAVA are not OOP either, due to their numerous deviations. May I provide the following resource, pointing out second paragraph under 'Adding a Method': http://www.kevlindev.com/tutorials/_javascript_/inheritance/index.htm Object-oriented programming consists of native inheritance. Are you suggesting that a prototypical approach to inheritance one in the same as native inheritance? This is a red herring. With this, you have attempted to change the topic from whether _javascript_ is OOP or not, to whether it has classical inheritence or not. Or, if you have not changed the topic, you appear to be assuming that everyone is in agreement that classes are a required attribute of OOP. This is arbitrary and nonsensical. Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luke, Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is _javascript_ object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if _javascript_ were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it is of my opinion that _javascript_ is more prototype than anything else. Thanks, Anthony. Yes that's fine anthony, but the problem is that statement doesn't actually mean anything. it is logically invalid, and quite nonsensical to say "_javascript_ is not object oriented, it's more prototype based", because the two things are not mutually exclusive. _javascript_ having prototypical inheritence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether it is object oriented or not. It can be both object oriented, AND based on prototypal inheritence, and in fact, it is both. 100%. This is not my opinion. it is a fact. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************