Improving EcmaScript5 OO with sugar

http://raynos.org/blog/17/Improving-ES5-OO-with-pd

by Raynos • 15 years ago

16 12 15 years ago

mrspeaker• 15 years ago

I hope ES.next gets a bunch of the goodness that is outlined in Harmony - this would mostly eradicate the need for stop-gap libraries like pd, or transpilers like CoffeeScript. http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_litera...

And being able to do

    var obj = protoObj <| { ... properties ... }

would be fantastic. If I that, and short function syntax then I'd be happy.

Raynos6• 15 years ago

You need all three I'm afraid.

We need an easy way to mixin/extend objects.

   var obj = protoObj <| mixin({ ... properties ... }, mixinA);

We also need a solid way to create instances.

   object.create(obj);
   obj.constructor();

is just too verbose. There is some talk around making `new` work with object exemplars which would be great.

Autre3• 15 years ago

Maybe I overlooked, but is there support for "super.method()" or something along those lines?

Raynos6• 15 years ago

super is a nightmare to emulate and get "right". It has a bunch of weird edge cases you don't really want to think about.

I promote code like

    var Cat = Object.make(Animal, {
      constructor: function() {
        Animal.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
        ...
      },
      walk: function() {
        Animal.walk.apply(this, arguments);
        ...
      }
    });

Now compare:

- Animal.walk.apply(this, arguments);

- this.super.apply(this, arguments);

- this.super.walk.apply(this, arguments);

Using super doesn't fix verbosity, it only fixes hard coupling of Child class name to Super class name.

For the complexities, edge cases and performance penalties a super implementation gives, it's simply not worth fixing this hard coupling.

If you know of a super implementation that _just works_ please [Leave an answer on StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8032566/emulate-super-in-...)

glenjamin• 15 years ago

I've been getting along fine with nothing but util.inherits from NodeJS.

Are there any real advantages to the "set the prototype to this object" approach versus building it up by assigment?

    function Animal(legs) {
        this.legs = legs;
    }
    Animal.prototype.speed = function() {
        return legs * 10;
    }
    
    util.inherits(Dog, Animal);
    function Dog(name) {
        this.constructor.super_.call(this, 4);
        this.name = name;
    }
    
    Dog.prototype.speed = function() {
        // I don't disagree that more sugar here would be good
        return this.constructor.super_.prototype.speed.call(this) * 2;
    }

Autre3• 15 years ago

Yeah, it gets really hairy, really quickly.

Beyond the need for calling the constructor (which I'm currently viewing it as an unnecessary hidrance [objects are already initialized]), Object.getPrototypeOf may provide a way out - but maybe not the way you intended. Have you considered it?

raganwald• 15 years ago

“There are multiple similar prototypical OO utilies... All solve the same problem:”

http://xkcd.com/927/

Raynos6• 15 years ago

For the record, I didn't write this library because I thought I could do it better.

I wrote it because I didn't know about these other utilities / tools.

Improving EcmaScript5 OO with sugar

Related Stories