[Dylan16807]

I've used it a moderate amount. But I'm not here to argue about how fluid functional code is, I'm here say that OOP works fine, and making slight changes to improve that experience is good. We don't need to actively discourage OOP by making it awkward.

Especially when you're not dealing with the DOM, sometimes objects work quite well.

The original awkwardness does not show that javascript "was never designed to be used like a classic OOP language".

Nor is it why jquery worked well.

And adding these slight changes is not trying to "hammer" javascript into being "more typical OOP".

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

> And adding these slight changes is not trying to "hammer" javascript into being "more typical OOP".

this is disingenuous and I'm ending it here. MS spent years trying, and initially failing, to get javascript to work in a more traditionally OOP way.

describing that as slight is something else.

[Dylan16807]

I started off with "I'm not sure what you mean" and you have given zero examples.

I'm not being disingenuous. Other people can't read your mind. Other people aren't experts on the same things you are.

And specifically, I described the class keyword as slight.

Don't be an asshole by accusing people of things they're not doing.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

do not speak with authority if you do not know.

do not try and downplay something just because you want it to be true.

[Dylan16807]

"I'm not sure what you mean." isn't speaking with authority.

And I stand by saying there was no need for the awkwardness with classes.

What did I downplay? You still haven't said what they did. I can't be downplaying a thing that isn't part of the conversation.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

saying the words "I'm not sure what you mean" doesn't give you a pass to speak with authority about the effort involved in getting the class keyword into javascript when you're ignorant of the history.

----

edit: But also, let me point something out.

what you're calling "awkwardness with classes" is incorrect. they were _functions_ that you could attach state to, some of that state could, itself, be callable functions. That's a large part of _why_ javascript has prototype inheritance.

javascript was primarily functional with some features that allowed a bit of OOP sprinkled in.

[Dylan16807]

I'm not interested in the effort to get that particular change in, I'm asking for you to elaborate in this broad effort you're implying beyond that. If I misread you, and you're not implying something broader and that's the only change they fought for, then yes it is quite small.

To be extra direct there: I didn't say the effort was small, I said that change was small. You can have a big effort for a small change. So you definitely misread me there.

But when you talked about "hammering" it into a more OOP language, I thought you were talking about big changes or many changes.

> what you're calling "awkwardness with classes" is incorrect. they were _functions_ that you could attach state to, some of that state could, itself, be callable functions. That's a large part of _why_ javascript has prototype inheritance.

Does it matter if the "class" itself is a function or an object or something else entirely? It makes thingies that have the prototype applied and you can do .foo on.

But classes you make with the keyword are still functions, aren't they? So what's the big betrayal?