Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

[Anthony Ziebell]

Ok, great. It was my intent to acknowledge some standards / submissions for OO which inferred classes / native inheritance were needed. Thanks for your help :) Cheers, Anthony. Keryx Web wrote: Anthony Ziebell skrev: Still confuses me though - if someone is object-orientated but is in essence prototype-based (with regards to object, inheritance, etc), why is it incorrect to say _javascript_ is prototype-based? Your confusion comes from comparing apples to steam trains. Prototypes are an inheritance mechanism for objects. Classes are another inheritance mechanism. A language may implement either one or both (very rare). It does not matter which inheritance mechanism that is used. It is still an OO language. It is *not* incorrect to say _javascript_ is prototype based. It is. No one is denying it. It is *not* incorrect to say _javascript_ is OO. It is, since OO is a paradigm for programming which JS fits very neatly in. It is de facto called OO in the ECMAScript spec. It is *not* incorrect to say _javascript_ is object based. It is - since it has object wrappers for all primitive values. You really did seem to say that classes are needed for a language to be called OO. Now you have stated that you did not intend to say that. Case closed. Lars Gunther ******************************************************************* 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] *******************************************************************