Message from JavaScript discussions

June 2017

— Https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-fields

— 

I personally think all the class syntax was a mistake (although I HAVE used it and it IS useful), but why wouldn't you support something like this, to make it easier for the OOP guys?

— It's familiar, it doesn't affect performance, anyone who doesn't understand it immediately can just google "JavaScript class hash"

Message permanent page

— Great if you're already using class syntax, no difference if you don't

— I just think it does too much, and is trying to solve a problem which already has elegant, JS-centric solutions. While JS is certainly in need of help with OOP, adding another keyword and a this alias adds nothing of value in my opinion, it's just piling some minute refinement on top of a lacking system without actually fixing the system. Do we *need* to access private properties from outside the class? If so, there are other ways, and also you should really re-evaluate why you need to do this in the first place!

Message permanent page

— From *inside the class

— I also think using Java as a qualifier is not, uh... good, at all. Heh. Let's just say Java does some things C++ developers would consider paramount to treason

Message permanent page

— Kek, yes, Java as an argument is dumb, since they have nothing to do with eachother

— The benefit is being able to allow a family of instances of the same class to access each other's private members.

Message permanent page

— SOME pieces of the stdlib in ecma is similar to Java equiv. (Like Math)

— Wat, how?

— A private keyword makes sense, it would just extend the existing class facade. This just... Yeah too much.

Message permanent page