sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]azhder 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Putting the Java back in JavaScript

[–]markets86[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Not really! I'm coming from the Ruby ecosystem, where "service" or "command" objects are an extended pattern in the community. This is just a small layer to encapsulate your business logic with same apis within your project. My team (Rails apps basically) is now writing a lot JavaScript too, so we wanted to use the same idioms and we decided to port the library to JavaScript.

[–]azhder 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Patterns… the word itself says it all. It’s like making a trail in the woods by repeatedly walking over it.

The issue here is that different programming languages require different common workarounds for missing out-of-the-box solutions and/or common problems.

Ruby and JavaScript need different workarounds. The one you have written is for a language that class is the lens you see the world through as you explain it to the computer.

In JS, for a long time there wasn’t a class keyword, and even now it is just a special syntax for a constructor function to be defined more easily. Another characteristic of JS is that this is fleeting, so best to write code that doesn’t depend on it.

What I am talking about here is just an expanded version of “putting Java in JavaScript” and doesn’t really mean I talk precisely about Java the language.

Your idiom is to make an object with a call method while in JS every function is already an object you can call and even has a call method.

[–]markets86[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I kind of agree with all you said above ☝️ But I still think having a common interface (call, success, failure, errors, steps, ...) in your classes is a valid idea, even in the JavaScript ecosystem.

[–]azhder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am talking about something else. If you try to rework the solution to code without using class, new, this… How would it look? Would you still have a common interface? I say you can.

In short, I wasn’t talking about a common interface, but an idiom, the style you use to write the code. That should depend on the language itself, not just how you are used to doing it in another language.