Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

12
  • 22
    "Couldn't JavaScript implement ... proper classes?" No. It already has proper prototypes. Prototypes are not inferior to classes. They are different. People have tried adding classes to JavaScript at various times and have been rather unsuccessful. Commented May 26, 2011 at 21:11
  • 5
    @Rein: And yet somehow ActionScript managed it... Commented May 26, 2011 at 21:27
  • 8
    @Tom there aren't "built-in classes". There's no such thing as a class in a prototypal language. You keep conflating the two paradigms. Commented May 26, 2011 at 22:07
  • 1
    I personally find the anonymous function language feature more flexible than classes. However I do like functional programming in which this idiom is common. Commented May 27, 2011 at 2:38
  • 1
    For others, here: brianodell.net/?page_id=516 is an awesome primer on JavaScript as a prototypal language. Commented Jun 15, 2011 at 16:59