|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dylan16807
883 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
But more importantly, this all started because I pointed out that javascript is a functional language.
This remains true, which is why writing functional code in javascript ends up with a better experience, and that's a large part of why jquery won.
Brendan Eich, the creator of javascript, was heavily influenced by. Scheme is functional so I'm not saying anything outlandish here.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1941...
> I've never used Self myself, but I believe that JavaScript's extensive use of prototypes came from Self.
> As for Scheme's influence, you need look no further than JS's first-class functions and lexical scoping (okay, so JS doesn't implement full lexical scoping in the way Scheme does, it implements function-level scoping, but still, it's close).