Using Object Literals as Classes

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 15:12:29 PDT 2012


On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Le 16/03/2012 23:00, Rick Waldron a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>
>>  Just to contribute to this... er... fun-thread...
>>
>> My team uses the closure pattern for our "classes" (i.e. no prototype
>> methods at all), since we value encapsulation. I can't imagine we're alone.
>>
>
>  For my own curiosity, can you point me to some examples where you are
> strategically avoiding the use of the prototype pattern?
>
> When he needs actual encapsulation.
> Unfortunately, methods on prototype require to have properties that are
> public.
>

If you avoid prototype methods, all your attributes and private methods can
> be shared by public method scopes.
>

Sorry, I don't subscribe to this as an adequate argument against
prototypes. jQuery has a whole lot of hidden, private functions and data -
using an IIFE. Ultimately, the developer makes the decision to write well
encapsulated code - prototype or closure pattern should have no bearing.

Rick



>
>
> David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120316/6dc6955c/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list