Is class syntax really necessary ?
rfobic at gmail.com
Mon May 23 06:11:49 PDT 2011
On Monday, 2011-05-23 at 13:10 , Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> On 23.05.2011 14:17, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I think there lot's of proposals for ES.next that require syntax extensions, which is probably worth if new functionality added or shortens most commonly used constructs like functions (were no other option is available). In case of this proposal: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:classes_with_trait_composition#open_issues even though
> > I like it I'm not sure adding new syntax is worth it.
> May I ask a counter question -- why do you think it's not good to add syntactic sugar for classes? It's a kind of a strange thing. People sometimes talk about unnecessarily of a sugar. But why I'm asking? Is it bad to use a sugar? Or do you _really_ worry about an _implementation_ that e.g. a language will be "too heavy"? After all, it's not even the issue of users, it's the issue of implementers.
Dimitry thanks that's very good question.
1. More syntax means larger language surface, which adds complexity more things to remember / learn. More things to consider in ES.next.next
2. I OOP in JS is already confusing for people coming from other languages, this proposal will make it even more confusing.
That is, since it's just a sugar, the users _still_ are free to use _desugared_ constructions (i.e. constructor + prototype + manual linkage of parent prototype in case of inheritance). If they want to. If they instead want to write with the sugar -- why we should worry about that "adding of new syntax is worth" (taking into account that `class`, `extends`, etc. keywords are already reserved since ES3 era).
> So from what I can tell, right after the sugar for classes is standardized, everyone will just start to use it and forget about desugared constructions. And nobody even will think and bother about whether it's worth or not.
I don't doubt that, but adoption will take longer.
> A good point of standardizing this "wrapper" (which is just a sugar) is that all ad-hoc class-wrappers of libraries will be just eliminated and there will be common classes sugar "from the box". Since JS already supports classical inheritance (though, without sugar), I don't how it's bad not to standardize the sugar for it. It will be convenient who need to program a class-based system. At the same time, if someone will still need a "chaotic code reuse", i.e. a prototype-based inheritance ("reuse a code from that object from which I want") -- they still be able to use things as `Object.create` (or <| operator, etc.)
>From my perspective main problem today is verbosity, which can be fixed without introducing new syntax. Also while I named some disadvantages, I can't really see any advantages of dedicated syntax, there for I think it's better to avoid adding more syntax changes.
> > I'm not suggesting that sugar for class composition is not necessary, example from three.js used by proposal highlights necessity pretty very well, I'm just thinking of doing that without introducing new syntax, here is one option: https://gist.github.com/986487
> > This way syntax noise may be reduced in addition this can be shimmed into current JS by implementing `Function.prototype.extend`.
> Yeah, OTOH, it can be so too. Though, the _familiar_ sugar will be bring the ability to involve programmers quicker.
> > Also every single frameworks today does something similar in one form or another, IMO all is necessary is to have a standard that will let bikeshedding go away.
> > I think there is also a good precedent of this with `Function.prototype.bind`.
> > Here are some related links:
> > http://documentcloud.github.com/backbone/
> > http://base2.googlecode.com/svn/version/1.0.2/doc/base2.html#/doc/!base2.Base
> > http://prototypejs.org/learn/class-inheritance
> > http://startdojo.com/2011/03/02/dojo-classes-inherited-and-constructors/
> > http://mootools.net/docs/core/Class/Class
> > Kind regards
> > --
> > Irakli Gozalishvili
> > Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/
> > Address: 29 Rue Saint-Georges, 75009 Paris, France
> > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss at mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss