From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-02-11T01:40:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Class of the Instance [was Re: Building a Better Functor]


"Adriano Ferreira" <a.r.ferreira@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:73ddeb6c050210080447cafa7f@mail.gmail.com...
> Robert Klemme  <bob.news@gmx.net> said:
> > JavaScript has no classes as far as I know.  Ruby has classes and >
from that alone it's obvious that it's a bit more complicated.
>
> Indeed JavaScript supports object orientation based on prototypes
> rather than classes. This is an idea borrowed by a Smalltalk-like
> language called Self and other sources of inspirations.
>
> Don't underestimate JavaScript though or prototype-based inheritance.

I didn't intend to.  It's just that Ruby has classes while JS has not.

> Most things that can be done with classes can be done with prototypes.
> Some things are straightforward with prototypes: delegation, addition
> of a few methods or properties to one or a few instances.
>
> The obvious thing with JavaScript is that it lacks syntactic sugar to
> make prototype construction more legible and distinguishable. Most
> JavaScript code out there are lame and don't use object programming.
> But the real point is that writing object code in JavaScript can be
> pretty complicated and likely much less legible than in Ruby.

Btw:

class JavaScript
  def method_missing(s,*a,&b)
    if /^(.*)=$/ =~ s.to_s
      class <<self;self;end.class_eval do
        define_method($1,&a[0])
      end
    else
      super
    end
  end
end

>> f=JavaScript.new
=> #<JavaScript:0x1017b1c8>
>> f.foo= lambda { puts "world" }
=> #<Proc:0x1016d368@(irb):76>
>> f.bar= lambda { puts "hello" }
=> #<Proc:0x10172a08@(irb):75>
>> f.bar; f.foo
hello
world
=> nil

:-)

Kind regards

    robert