Minimalist (why) classes ?

John J Barton johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Fri Nov 11 16:42:34 PST 2011


On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
>
> Thats exact port of proposal that Jeremy wrote here:
> https://gist.github.com/1329619
> I could write add examples from the classes proposal if that wolud help:
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes
>
> Maybe, but I think that you'd be beating a dead horse.
> Class syntax is wanted to avoid some method calling boilerplate that's more
> verbose, arguably easier to get wrong, and harder to analyze and optimize.
> That's it.
> Hence, "classes as sugar". If you find existing JS sweet enough, you won't
> want classes.

If I understand Iraki's proposal, then, no we don't find JS sweet enough.

Object.extend() does not exist. Similar but not identical functions
are widely used. We would like a standard form built-in to the
runtime.

Or is this already in the standard but not implemented?

jjb


More information about the es-discuss mailing list