Re:JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript
by aethr on Thursday May 31, 2012 @03:27AM
(#4046832)
You're right, when talking about a primitive type in the programming sense, something either is primitive or it isn't.
I took this phrase to mean that the prototype construct is "one step down on the composite type hierarchy" from what is needed to emulate as a Java-style class.
Rather, its a good building block but the necessary boilerplate code makes it "too basic" for that purpose. Therefor this developer has created a type further up the composite type hierarchy (or further away from the primitives) to accomplish his goal.
I don't think he's trying to suggest any deficiency in the expressiveness or capability of the prototype construct (he's obviously quite familiar with it to create this language). This is simply a tool for people who aren't familiar with (or don't make use of) that aspect of Javascript to be productive by utilising a more brief, or possibly more familiar (ie Java) syntax.
I took this phrase to mean that the prototype construct is "one step down on the composite type hierarchy" from what is needed to emulate as a Java-style class.
Rather, its a good building block but the necessary boilerplate code makes it "too basic" for that purpose. Therefor this developer has created a type further up the composite type hierarchy (or further away from the primitives) to accomplish his goal.
I don't think he's trying to suggest any deficiency in the expressiveness or capability of the prototype construct (he's obviously quite familiar with it to create this language). This is simply a tool for people who aren't familiar with (or don't make use of) that aspect of Javascript to be productive by utilising a more brief, or possibly more familiar (ie Java) syntax.