I completely agree. I taught JS/TS for 5yrs and I always emphasised that the ‘class’ keyword was just syntactic sugar for what was already available in prototype inheritance of JS.
Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.
JS Objects aren’t typically used that way, they tend to be used as pure data containers. At least, that’s how we mostly use them.
Occasionally, we’ll use objects to simplify passing multiple arguments including arrow functions, but I’d say that doesn’t really count unless the arrow function mutates the object it’s a part of.
Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.
You’re referring to one subtype of OOP. That may be what most people mean when they say OOP, but that doesn’t make it correct. Object-oriented programming is programming with objects, which does not require inheritance or classes.
I haven’t used TypeScript in a classically OOP way and it never felt like I was being urged to do so either.
It becomes quite OOP if you use it with React
Huh? I’ve worked with TypeScript + React for the last 5yrs and the only time I see OOP is when someone’s done something wrong.
Maybe you’re thinking of old react with class based components?
Proving that adding the
classkeyword to the ECMAScript spec was a mistake that leads folks down a path they should not travel 🙃I completely agree. I taught JS/TS for 5yrs and I always emphasised that the ‘class’ keyword was just syntactic sugar for what was already available in prototype inheritance of JS.
I’ve worked on projects with 10 000+ lines or typescript and maybe 3 classes total
But you have used objects I think.
Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.
JS Objects aren’t typically used that way, they tend to be used as pure data containers. At least, that’s how we mostly use them.
Occasionally, we’ll use objects to simplify passing multiple arguments including arrow functions, but I’d say that doesn’t really count unless the arrow function mutates the object it’s a part of.
You’re referring to one subtype of OOP. That may be what most people mean when they say OOP, but that doesn’t make it correct. Object-oriented programming is programming with objects, which does not require inheritance or classes.
With such a broad definition you could call even Haskell an oop language
So you’re arguing that “Object oriented” shouldn’t apply to languages that are oriented around objects?