Alberto wrote:
You have been misled by the Prototype.js author's falling victim to the
common misconception that prototype-based inheritance would not be an
application of the object-oriented programming paradigm.
Hopefully now you can begin to appreciate me and others repeatedly calling
Prototype.js junk before. You may search the archives of this newsgroup for
more insight. You should have done this before you posted, see
http://jibbering.com/faq/ pp.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
On 29 abr, 14:54, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregork ofler.atwrote:
>
FALSE, extending the prototype in JS is usually done to simulate OO
behavior. Not real classes, but really useful ones.
>Alberto meinte:
>Classes in JS? No such thing...
>>[...]
>>It's kind of weird because I tried to show an alert before of the
>>class definition but it is not shown even though the error is thrown
>>at the instantiation of the autocompleter.
>>It's kind of weird because I tried to show an alert before of the
>>class definition but it is not shown even though the error is thrown
>>at the instantiation of the autocompleter.
FALSE, extending the prototype in JS is usually done to simulate OO
behavior. Not real classes, but really useful ones.
common misconception that prototype-based inheritance would not be an
application of the object-oriented programming paradigm.
Hopefully now you can begin to appreciate me and others repeatedly calling
Prototype.js junk before. You may search the archives of this newsgroup for
more insight. You should have done this before you posted, see
http://jibbering.com/faq/ pp.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Comment