Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
Because it's syntactic sugar. You couldn't do it the old way of doing classes, and you can't do it now
-
@iam13islucky dafuq. The old way doing classes just cries for using their scope for privates.
But the old ways didn't have nice ways for extends and stuff. -
@iam13islucky I guess you only know about the Shit.prototype.thing way, eh?
You could actually just misuse a function as class, by setting props into its this and returning its this and get the instances via new Func(). -
horrible code, of course, but the Prototype thing wasn't any better. And now you got all sorts of vars dangeling around in yo instance. Not better at all.
-
@daintycode let is block scoped, so it'll act private. Dunno what else to tell you
-
@Chefren all these typescript, flow things actually seem more and more nice from day to day tbh.
Related Rants
Used ES6 classes 'cus I really like doing things the classy way..
...nice shit you can do there...
...
FOR FUCKS SAKE WHO THOUGHT IT IS A WICKED IDEA TO SPECIFICALLY NOT IMPLEMENT PRIVATES IN THAT SHIT.
undefined
ffs
js
pun intended
classes