Is class syntax really necessary ?

Isaac Schlueter i at
Mon May 23 09:14:30 PDT 2011

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:51, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
> Class syntax is like a lint brush for such features. If we add it, it will accrete more semantics (with unambiguous syntax, I hope) over time. This is just inevitable, in my view. It makes me want to resist classes and look at smaller and more direct fixes for the two known prototypal hazards.

Yes, please!

I assume "two known hazards" is referring to your previous email:
"subclassed prototype/constructor set-up and super calls."

I've been using this pattern in my OOP javascript programs lately:

It works really well, behaves as expected (easy for the author to say,
ha, but it doesn't violate instanceof, doesn't call ctors more than
once, doesn't clobber already-added prototype properties, etc.)  And
it's about 10 lines, easy to read and grok.

What would make it even nicer, however, with minimal added syntax:

1. Call "super(a, b, c)" instead of ", a, b, c)"
2. Maybe Parent.extend(Child) or Child.inherit(Parent) instead of
inherits(Child, Parent)
3. Right now, calling parent versions of overridden methods is a
painful: "".
It'd be nice to use something like "super.someMethod()".

More information about the es-discuss mailing list