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]
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to