@brendaneich @adamrackis i think i only objected to "class as ONLY sugar for prototypal pattern" ;-)
-
-
@wycats@brendaneich my point: if people alter their non-class patterns around this quirk of classes, may restrict future change to it -
@wycats@brendaneich so if you later change class constructors to be callable in some way, could break code. -
@wycats@brendaneich and i'm well aware TC39 thinks class is better than non-class. some of us disagree. -
@getify@BrendanEich I'm sorry to say, but you may have the Curse of Knowledge. -
@wycats@brendaneich let's not pretend that the organic patterns that devs have grown to work-around JS quirks haven't restricted future JS. -
@getify@BrendanEich I have literally been the #1 advocate for considering existing patterns on TC39. It's not an absolute. -
@getify@BrendanEich you should gist the code you are saying broke. -
@getify@BrendanEich ES5 code was allowed to throw in the constructor, and that was actually a quite common defense! - 13 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@getify@BrendanEich in this case, class authors no longer need to defend against wayward calls, and linters don't need to worry about Foo() -
@getify@BrendanEich those improvements have some small impact on highly dynamic meta-code patterns, but new patterns are possible. -
@wycats@getify@BrendanEich I'm really just bothered that my fav js joke is ruined. "JS has no class". -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.