Wiscombe: Profsimm: why would you want to bind all of the methods to a single object anyway?
Sages: Profsimm: extending instances is what JS’s OO model is all about. There are only instances in this language
Marth: Dekok: so I don’t have to bind them every time I p*** them somewhere
Lasik: Dekok: you’re still in the 90s
Burlage: JS’s OO model is accidentally this way.
Carey: Profsimm: I’d recommend stopping with the personal attacks
Mauger: It wasn’t a good idea and it still isn’t.
Redell: Is theresome function that returns the parent form of the current button that got clicked ? so i use it in the onclick event
Dentel: Profsimm: and no, JS’s OO model is fundamentally based on objects inheriting directly from objects. It has always been like that, it will always be like that.
Aeschliman: Profsimm: also, the whole committee designing JS disagrees with you about it being a “bad idea”
Daponte: I mean so i use the form in an ajax code and update the DB
Simi: But sure, you’re free to do your own thing. If you want “cl***es,” just implement that model on top of prototypes.
Korslund: Dekok: looking at ES6 cl***es, that’s debatable. They’re paying lip service to a certain JS creator, but really the writing is on the wall
Pefferkorn: You *do* take the performance hit from that, and your objects won’t really be interacting with the rest of the language.
Amaral: Profsimm: ES6 cl***es are not cl***ical OO cl***es…
Schollmeier: They’re *fundamentally different* OO models.
Sammer: Dekok: the difference is verbal more than mechanical, so yes they are.
Laubhan: You can implement one on top of the other.
Greenly: EvalInt === 0 ? return true : return false;
Belliveau: Profsimm: it’s a semantic difference.
Reiniger: Profsimm: prototype-based OO is, semantically, very different from cl***-based OO.
Guszak: Dekok: in fact, save yourself the time. I know the argument, and I don’t buy it.
Salowitz: Profsimm: in a cl***-based OO language, you have cl***es, which are the *SOLE THING* that determine the layout of objects. Objects are intrinsically attached to a cl***. Objects might change cl***es during runtime as they do in Smalltalk. In prototype-based OO languages, each obect defines its own layout.
Levreau: Profsimm: if you want to ignore OO literature, sure, go ahead.
Karin: Profsimm: you’re free to read that same definition from Self’s academic papers as well: http://bibliography.selflanguage.org/self-power.html
Posch: Dekok: each object defines its layout. based on the prototype. Each object has a layout. based on the cl***.
Thornes: Anything I should change in my code for “best practice”? http://i.imgur.com/M5PS4bq.png
Vergeer: Dekok: ellipsis! I’m convinced.
Zielinski: Profsimm: go read Self’s paper instead of twisting my words, why don’t you?
Eschenburg: Dekok: I don’t care about Self.
Wernert: Frogdr: that’s not recursive
Roznowski: Profsimm: good. Then don’t criticise JS’s OO model based on wrong definitions of the term “prototype-based OO.”
Mulaney: Who’s using gulp? What’s wrong here? https://gist.github.com/anonymous/48f88a2c6a6ef2dad72c
Palmiter: Dekok: Self is not JS either.
Mazzone: Profsimm: you’re free to think whatever you want about the model being good or bad, just don’t spread misinformation.
Naftel: Dekok: and if I cared, I’d link you to materials discussing it.
Burkard: Profsimm: it isn’t. But the OO model is the same thing.
Mchargue: Except Self uses multi-delegation, whereas JS only has single-delegation