Sep 27 meeting notes

Axel Rauschmayer axel at
Fri Sep 30 14:49:32 PDT 2011

> From: Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at>
> Subject: Re: Sep 27 meeting notes
> Date: September 30, 2011 23:17:04 GMT+02:00
> To: Brendan Eich <brendan at>
> Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at>, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson at>
> Without 2, 4, and 5, object initializers are close enough to make having an extra class facility not carry its weight.

Can you show code that backs up that assertion? (I’m curious, not dismissive.)

Wasn’t it David Herman a while ago who listed a minimal feature list? For me it would be:

1. Super property references (mainly methods)
2. Super constructor references
3. Subclassing (mainly wiring the prototypes)
4. Defining a class as compactly as possible (with subclassing, it is painful that one has to assemble so many pieces).
5. Having a standard construct that fosters IDE support. Currently there are too many inheritance APIs out there, making IDE support nearly impossible.
6. A platform on which to build future extensions (traits!).

Allen’s object literal extensions give us #1 and #2. His prototype operator gives us #3. #4 can be done via Allen’s pattern or by introducing the methods
- Function.prototype.withPrototypeProperties(props)
- Function.prototype.withClassProperties(props)

I’m not sure about #5 (I’d consider class literals a plus here). #6 can be postponed if we can get 1-5 by other means, but there will be a price to pay if two competing ways of defining classes have to be used in

Dr. Axel Rauschmayer

axel at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list