>> guess) it a pain. the javascript class code structure it also very >akword >> to be coming from a C++ background. > >Amen, and i had the same hurdle to climb, but JavaScript isn't C++. It >uses a completely different type of OOP. These articles may be helpful >in understanding it: > >Implementing classical inheritance in JS: >http://javascript.crockford.com/inheritance.html > >Understanding Prototypal inheritance: >http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html > >It's interesting to note that while the first article is quite famous, >and does show how to implement C++-like inheritance in JS, the author >of the article no longer stands by that method, preferring prototypal >inheritance instead.
This is just my opinion, but one reason I prefer to create JS objects the way ECMA has defined the syntax is it helps me to keep in mind that JavaScript is not C, Java, C++ or C#--it's JavaScript. If you end up trying to copy coding techniques from another language too closely, I find myself expecting that language to behave accordingly. That usually gets me into trouble. So while it coding your JS objects in a way that fits your C++ familiarity may help you develop code a little faster out of the box, it's important to realize that JS is not C++ and it has its own caveats and quirks. I'm sure you realize this, but sticking with the native JS object creation methods has helped to limit confusion for me... -Dan
