Look Ma, no "this" (was: ECMAScript Harmony)
petermichaux at gmail.com
Sat Aug 30 12:58:43 PDT 2008
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> No, prototypes are here to stay. There's even Object.create to
> relieve prototypers from having to write constructor functions.
> The desire to explore ZI is two-fold:
> 1. It may help the committee to see the smallest possible proposal,
> and work up from there to SI and MI.
> 2. It may help the language to avoid adding another kind of
> inheritance than prototype-based delegation.
I find this perspective on classes and SI in Java from James Gosling
interesting. These are not James' words exactly but if the author's
writing is consistent with James' thoughts this could be taken as a
strong warning from someone with a lot of experience regarding SI. I'm
not bringing this up for the "implements" and type-checking aspects (a
separate issue) but rather just the ZI, SI, and MI issue.
>From http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-2003/jw-0801-toolbox.html :
I once attended a Java user group meeting where James Gosling (Java's
inventor) was the featured speaker. During the memorable Q&A session,
someone asked him: "If you could do Java over again, what would you
change?" "I'd leave out classes," he replied. After the laughter died
down, he explained that the real problem wasn't classes per se, but
rather implementation inheritance (the extends relationship).
Interface inheritance (the implements relationship) is preferable. You
should avoid implementation inheritance whenever possible."
More information about the Es-discuss