On 06-08-23, at 16:15, Phrogz wrote:

> David Vallner wrote:
>> Prototype-based OO *is* OO, even if you don't understand it. (I'll  
>> admit
>> at this point I prefer the Self / IO style of prototype-based OO than
>> Javascript's, but that's personal preference.)
>
> Depending on your definition of what OO means, I might disagree.
>
> JavaScript is nicely OO in that there are Objects that have Methods  
> and
> Properties, and an implicit scope ('this') inside those methods.
>
> If you consider classes, and especially class inheritance, to be an
> important part of OO, then you're in for a surprise. Not only does the
> language not support it well, but even with some dirty hacks[1] there
> are still serious limitations[2] when it comes to more than one level
> of inheritance.

Anyone who has a view that OO requires classes is in for a shock.  
Their narrow view is somewhat shocking to me to be honest. Prototype- 
based OO has been around for 20 years; just because you ignore it,  
doesn't mean it isn't there.

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna / blurgle.ca