7 ms·

Not ‘nothing’ has changed. Classes are supposed to be syntactic sugar over constructor functions, but the later could be invoked as well as instantiated with th

Not ‘nothing’ has changed. Classes are supposed to be syntactic sugar over constructor functions, but the later could be invoked as well as instantiated with the ‘new’ keyword, whereas the interpreter will error out on you if you attempt to invoke a class. That is fine though, I don’t care for constructor functions. I was talking about using metaobjects, a different concept altogether.

jdlshore 3y ago
Okay, I think I get your complaint. JavaScript doesn’t have a metaobject protocol, but there were a variety of user-land approaches to OOP that added one. Although they’re still technically possible, the class syntax formalized a non-MOP approach to OOP, and those third-party tools have all fallen by the wayside. It’s not so much that you can’t use a MOP in JS, so much that people don’t, and will look at you funny if you do. As a lover of simple and straightforward code, I never used the MOPs—I hand-coded “class.prototype.method = function()” like God intended*—and I’m happy the standard uses that more traditional approach. But I can see how someone who did use a MOP would feel that the class syntax is a step backwards. *that’s a joke.
- lobstrosity420 3y ago
  Yes, this is it. The MOP approach basically involves using ‘Object.assign’ to instantiate new objects from the metaobject. It is quite straightforward in my opinion, but that is relative I suppose. I don’t know if this is true but I’ve been told that Brendan Eich intended for this exact approach to be the one and true OOP in JS, but was persuaded by his boss to implement constructor functions to make it more like Java.
  - moron4hire 3y ago
    That'd be a little weird if that was Eich's "original vision" considering `Object.assign` didn't come out until ES6. Which was also when the `class` keyword was introduced.
    - lobstrosity420 3y ago
      Good catch. It’s been a while since I’ve been thought the ways of old JS so I’m misremembering. It’s all apocryphal anyhow.
      - BrendanEich 3y ago
        It's not apocryphal if I'm the source. I wanted Self-ish prototypes and cloning but "Make It Look Like Java" orders trumped my wishes.

jdlshore 3y ago

Okay, I think I get your complaint. JavaScript doesn’t have a metaobject protocol, but there were a variety of user-land approaches to OOP that added one. Although they’re still technically possible, the class syntax formalized a non-MOP approach to OOP, and those third-party tools have all fallen by the wayside. It’s not so much that you can’t use a MOP in JS, so much that people don’t, and will look at you funny if you do. As a lover of simple and straightforward code, I never used the MOPs—I hand-coded “class.prototype.method = function()” like God intended*—and I’m happy the standard uses that more traditional approach. But I can see how someone who did use a MOP would feel that the class syntax is a step backwards. *that’s a joke.

lobstrosity420 3y ago
Yes, this is it. The MOP approach basically involves using ‘Object.assign’ to instantiate new objects from the metaobject. It is quite straightforward in my opinion, but that is relative I suppose. I don’t know if this is true but I’ve been told that Brendan Eich intended for this exact approach to be the one and true OOP in JS, but was persuaded by his boss to implement constructor functions to make it more like Java.
- moron4hire 3y ago
  That'd be a little weird if that was Eich's "original vision" considering `Object.assign` didn't come out until ES6. Which was also when the `class` keyword was introduced.
  - lobstrosity420 3y ago
    Good catch. It’s been a while since I’ve been thought the ways of old JS so I’m misremembering. It’s all apocryphal anyhow.
    - BrendanEich 3y ago
      It's not apocryphal if I'm the source. I wanted Self-ish prototypes and cloning but "Make It Look Like Java" orders trumped my wishes.