Message from JavaScript discussions

June 2017

— 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?

Message permanent page


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

— 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

— I don't see how instanceA would be able to access private vars of instanceB