tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768144104280624268.post3771090741626248395..comments2023-09-07T02:19:43.760-07:00Comments on TechnoDweebTimes: Javascript OOpsesesesSandy Staabhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16278458184672178465noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768144104280624268.post-28983358326919628862013-11-02T04:49:52.198-07:002013-11-02T04:49:52.198-07:00Good note. I do like my form better because it ad...Good note. I do like my form better because it adds a little naming convention to help shore up what is meant by the code. JavaScript is so loose you can tie yourself in knots and get confused - which I still am. The article you mention goes into multiple inheritance which can be done but what I think a reader needs to clearly see is the inheritance chain of any object and because the class factory functions are clearly named create... one can quickly search the js code for the parent class definitions.<br />This idea of just throwing new elements into a class after the fact with .prototype is just scary to me.<br />Also I am still unclear how an instance of a function() varies from the function itself. My convention forces just using instances and further simplifies the mire.<br />I hope Crockford finds time to glance at this - if he approved, I know I am on a good track.Sandy Staabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16278458184672178465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768144104280624268.post-13731676646797485982013-11-01T17:32:29.880-07:002013-11-01T17:32:29.880-07:00Yeah, that seems reasonable. You'd definitely ...Yeah, that seems reasonable. You'd definitely need to be careful about your definitions on the createXInstance() functions, but that seems like it would work. Did you see this one? http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2009/06/wait-moment-javascript-does-support.html<br /><br />I like your encapsulation better, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com