Minimalist (why) classes ?

John J Barton johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Fri Nov 11 17:44:12 PST 2011


On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:42 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>
>> Object.extend() does not exist.
>
> Which one do you mean?

I mean Object.extend does not exist.

>
> Irakli is using Function.prototype.extend, not something like PrototypeJS's Object.extend.

Iraki wrote Object.extend().

>
>
>> Similar but not identical functions
>> are widely used. We would like a standard form built-in to the
>> runtime.
>
> You have to specify. But anyway, adding something specific, say Irakli's Function.prototype.extend, would not address the goals of classes-as-sugar.

True by your definition, but not relevant, since I'm not claiming any
goals classes are covered.  Iraki is, but I guess he missed your point
about our opinion on classes being irrelevant (which makes sense to
FWIW)..

>
>
>> Or is this already in the standard but not implemented?
>
> What "this" do you mean, *exactly*?

Of course I cannot answer "exactly". If I could we would not need a standard.

>
> No fair acting like I didn't get you a free hot dog while I was selling hamburgers!

We need hot dogs.  Hopefully someone selling other things will offer
hot dogs if we keep asking.

>You have to give (with specifics) to hope to get; you have to play to win.

Ok sorry I did not know the rules.

jjb


More information about the es-discuss mailing list