W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-jseverywhere@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Javascript Class Specification: seek discussion in this email group.

From: Sam L'Ecuyer <samlecuyer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:55:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CADSfdpxj65bO7drd30q03LRzuGZjQA=3aZRGT0HkcQ+eWa_p0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: chun feng <fengchun.china@gmail.com>
Cc: public-jseverywhere@w3.org
Hi Feng Chun,

There actually is a class definition discussion going on in the language
spec team, here:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_minimal_classes

Apart from that, however, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on the
role of such a complex class system as you've proposed in preference of the
CommonJS module definition.  I recommend that you read it.

 http://www.commonjs.org/specs/modules/1.0/

The CommonJS module definition is small, portable, and, most importantly,
keeps Javascript Javascript.  The Java class system is overly verbose, and
even the dojo project (which used to use a very Java-like name-spacing) has
moved to the simpler require() system.


What is it that the JSDK you've proposed brings to the table that is
missing from existing module schemes?  Is it something new, or is it just
Java?

Cheers,
Sam



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33 AM, chun feng <fengchun.china@gmail.com>wrote:

> Too quiet here.And nothing mails.
> I thought the people here are specification lovers or senior developers.
>
> If someone is really interested in the JS class specification, then please
> join my document discussions, tell me your opinion.Today I just updated it:
> https://github.com/fch415/jtdk/blob/master/jcs_en.md.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Feng Chun
>



-- 
Thanks,
Sam L'Ecuyer
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 21:54:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 21:54:24 GMT