2008/10/27 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Not once did I hear someone say it was prototype-based. Intact others have > flat out denied it. > > The question was is it either object or prototype. I merely stated if > anything it should be seen as prototype, but it does have objects.
Now you're doing that again. What do you mean when you say "is it either object or prototype"? Because the sentence as you write it is nonsensical. If you mean object-based and prototype-based respectively, then say that. If you mean object oriented, then say that. If you mean that it has objects, then say that. But saying "javascript is object" or "javascript is prototype" is nonsensical. For the record, pretty much everyone has said either that it uses prototypal inheritance - which means the same thing as saying it's prototype-based - or have said that it is prototype-based. > Then, it followed with all sorts of garbage from those trying to debunk the > notion of javascript being prototype. Not once did I say it does not have > objects. Intact I offered that it does. "it has objects" does not mean the same as object oriented. It doesn't even mean the same as object-based. You've argued that it's prototype-based rather than object oriented, and every time we've said that it's both you've argued against us. We have not debunked that it's prototype-based, in fact we've brought up the fact it has prototypal inheritance and this is one of the mechanisms that makes it object oriented several times. -- David "liorean" Andersson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
