Is class syntax really necessary ?

Irakli Gozalishvili rfobic at
Mon May 23 09:38:45 PDT 2011

On Monday, 2011-05-23 at 18:14 , Isaac Schlueter wrote: 
> 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.
I personally prefer backbone style as IMO it has advantage of keeping complete setup in one declaration statement.

> 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()".
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list