[Kwantuum]

There are several points in the article which are just plain wrong:

- no private properties (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...)

- no readonly properties: You can use a getter. Or define the property as non-writable, the syntax isn't nice but in my opinion it's still much nicer than what the article proposes.

Some of the points are just a matter of taste ("this" is awkward)

There's the implementation itself which forces you to use non-idiomatic code for no good reason or benefit (Class.init instead of new, just why? You can absolutely return a constructor function there while preserving everything else)

Doing what the article proposes also destroys the ability to do instanceof checks because the prototype of instances is not set (can be fixed), and inheritance is severely limited if you want to preserve any of the purported benefits. You might say that inheritance is actually not a good thing and so it's a feature, not a bug, but if that's your opinion why are you trying to mimic a class?

[nurple]

Agreed. I spent a small epoch of my career trying to make js have "classes" in the heady days of OOP. It took a bit to realize that idiomatic js didn't need them. Besides being sold so hard on OOP as a concept, failing to understand prototypes was one of my biggest mistakes. By the time they landed, I was actually pretty disappointed to see the language get classes.

[masklinn]

> By the time they landed, I was actually pretty disappointed to see the language get classes.

TBF classes are just a layer of syntactic sugar over the (awful) prototypal system (which somewhat sadly few were interested in making better let alone good).

Behind the scenes, they pretty much just create a ctor function and prototype function, except you don't have to mess with the terrible `Object.create` and `.prototype =` nonsense.

Abandoning constructors and going full-on with prototypes would be an other thing entirely, but the reality is that javascript is not very good at it so it's not very fun (except as a proof of concept / investigation of prototype based OO), and pretty much nobody is interested.

[nurple]

Yeah, that's fair. I guess I don't really use prototypes anymore either. I find modules and closures are intuitive and powerful, though very different conceptually from classes/prototypes, tools for handling things like private state. Really OOP is what I've grown away from over the years in most languages. I even enjoy writing C++ in this style since its capabilities around things like closures has improved, anonymous namespaces make for a similar "module" scope to what you find in js.