Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Alex Russell alex at
Fri Mar 23 02:24:12 PDT 2012

On Mar 21, 2012, at 1:42 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:03, Russell Leggett
> <russell.leggett at> wrote:
>> So what do you say people? Is it safe enough?


>> One of the biggest arguments
>> I’ve heard against rushing in a class syntax now is that once its in we have
>> to keep supporting it.

This argument might have worked a year or two ago when we handn't all been around the entire solution space multiple times...but we have. We know now that most of the options involve some tradeoff that is, in some way, distasteful...including leaning on literal syntaxes when what you really want is a class. So we need to disallow this argument unless it's backed up with a *specific* future-compat critique.

>> I say that this is small enough we won’t regret it,
>> and makes it possible to do a lot more in the future. If something more
>> substantial can be agreed on soon enough to make it into ES6, even better,
>> but maybe we can at least have a backup plan.
> +1

Seconded. We've already walked back a loooong way from the proposals that Bob, Peter, Arv, and I made a year+ ago, and traits as the composition mechanism seem very far off. But nothing gets off the ground without classes. We need this, and we need it *stat*.

> Where do I sign?

More information about the es-discuss mailing list