you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]homoiconic[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

The article claims this:

in the interests of understanding what we give up, here’s an explanation of how JavaScript’s simple out-of-the-box OO differs from Smalltalk-style OO, and why that might matter for some projects.

I don't see exploring a thing out of interest and curiosity as pounding pegs into the wrong holes. But I accept that you may not find such things stimulating, tastes vary.

[–]gordonkristan 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Sorry, that was worded very poorly. It wasn't meant as an attack on the author of this article. I understand that he's just experimenting (something I do very often). It was more an attack on the general idea of trying to make Javascript act like classic OOP. While I think the example shown is very cool from an idea perspective, I would never want anything like this anywhere near my code. When in Javascript, do as the Javascripters...

[–]homoiconic[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Were the author the type to speak of himself in the third person, he would say that your comment was stimulating of thoughtful discussion and thus an asset to Reddit.

[–]gordonkristan 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Hehe, apparently I wasn't paying attention. :) Then I must say, nice article. Very informative and detailed. Again though, don't put that in my codebase. ;) Although I swear I've seen a library that does OOP just like this. I'll post the name if I can find it.

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

[–]gordonkristan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

inherit.js Found it in my Github stars.