Complete Minimal Classes
russell.leggett at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 19:14:54 PDT 2012
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:
> What you're missing is the history.
> Russell, that's not fair. I've been listening for quite a while and I've
> combed through the archives. I've poured over each of the proposals that
> you've mentioned. You're assuming that I'm some kind of newbie because I
> I knew this post might be unpopular, but I'm trying to help and I have
> something to say. Don't shut me down just because I'm not stepping in line.
I'm not assuming you're a newbie. Heck, I consider myself a newbie. Perhaps
I'm just jaded. Two weeks ago, I had hope that max-min would get us
something. Now I'm feeling less hopeful. New class proposals going in the
other direction feels like going in the circles. We need to address the
consensus gap more directly.
Regarding your proposal specifically, this is what I see:
Arbitrary prototype properties is surely to draw fire. It can be a foot-gun
and might conflict with instance properties in the future. Adding support
for statics is probably less controversial. In truth, I think its the only
real difference between max-min and David Herman's min classes. However,
that means if we take out arbitrary prototype properties, we're back to a
proposal which also hasn't reached consensus. As for your fourth, most
controversial point, separating call and constructor would diverge from the
existing pattern. Number() and new Number() always call the same function.
My opinion on whether or not its a good idea doesn't even factor in. I want
classes. I don't see this feature being even remotely possible to
consensus. If we get consensus on something, I would love to debate more
I'm not trying to shut you down. I just really want classes to happen, even
if in the most minimal form. I apologize if I seem dismissive, I just don't
see it as being the most productive way of getting there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss