![]() Besides avoiding new and this tomfoolery, it allows us to use our objects interchangeably with CommonJS and ES6 modules. SpillTheBeans() // Favor composition over inheritance, (.) JavaScript Pop Quiz #1: What’s the Essential Difference Between These Code Blocks? function PrototypicalGreeting(greeting = "Hello", name = "World") = secretFactory() ![]() Accessing this before calling super constructors. Before I go any further, let’s illustrate. To enable ES6 generation mode, simply add -D js-es6 to the compiler arguments. These statements bother me because none of them are true, and they demonstrate the consequences of JavaScript’s “everything for everyone” approach to language design: It cripples a programmer’s understanding of the language more often than it enables. These statements don’t bother me because they imply there’s something wrong with prototypical inheritance let’s set aside those arguments. “Classes are a safer, easier approach to creating types in JavaScript.” “Classes free us up from thinking about JavaScript’s broken inheritance model.” “JavaScript is finally a real object-oriented language now that it has classes!” Some of the talk around classes is frankly alarming and reveals a deep-rooted misunderstanding of how the language actually works: The worst offender by far is new to JavaScript’s latest release version, ECMAScript 6 (ES6): classes. Arrays aren’t really arrays what’s the deal with this, what’s a prototype, and what does new actually do? The Trouble with ES6 Classes Programmers with experience in other languages reasonably assume things with similar names and appearances will work the same way in JavaScript and are often wrong. ![]() New programmers struggle with some of its more difficult concepts-think asynchronicity, closures, and hoisting. JavaScript also has its warts, traps, and questionable features. ![]() It’s weakly and dynamically typed, with a mazelike approach to type coercion that trips up even experienced developers. It has numerous, often redundant, approaches to solving almost any conceivable programming problem and is not strongly opinionated about which are preferred. It combines aspects of procedural, functional, and object-oriented programming (OOP) paradigms. Though inspired by Smalltalk, it uses a C-like syntax. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |