Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Non-class based example of customElement.define() (#587)

Overall, I'm far far less concerned with this feature's adherence to the beast that is `class` than I am concerned with being told that Custom Elements is an example of something that conventional JS cannot do. Much of what I feel was the message being sold about classes as it was being created was that it was a syntax sugar to give regularity to what we did- finding out that classes are not modularly able to interwork with conventional JS- as I'm being told here- is a shocker, and one I've never seen expressed before.

If classes indeed can be dynamically constructed, I'll be a little less irked, but I didn't think there was supposed to be this wall between what I thought was new syntax and the constructs and behaviors that've long made up JS: I thought there was inter-operability, and the old examples of Web Components showed what looked like what I'd expect a class/extends to look like sans classes syntax, and I have a lot of background on the matters but not enough to begin to guess why the very simple Object.create(HTMLElement.prototype) shown there suddenly isn't good enough and now I have to use new syntax. 

I also still don't see yet that dynamic creation of classes is possible. If anyone wants to help, here's the requested StackOverflow for dynamic `class` creation](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Custom_Elements$revision/1130151#Example), many thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/587#issuecomment-254003157