Comment by Marco Alka on "To use or not to use ES6 classes?"

I think you got something wrong there, mate. JS always had classes before. They just look a bit different:

function MyClass() {
  this.foo = function() { console.log('Foo'); }
}

var myObj = new MyClass();
myObj.foo();

So it's not that discussed ;) The ES6 class keyword just makes it look more like a class compared to other programming languages, like C++. I think that is a good thing!

With ES6 class being just syntactical sugar, you even still can use all the old stuff. I, for example, like to make an interface with the class keyword, but have all methods throw 'Not Implemented' and then use prototype to implement them some place else. This results in a very clean and readable interface, as the declaration is always just one line:

'use strict';
class MyClass {
  /**
   * Do not forget to comment and document everything :)
   */
  foo() { throw 'Not Implemented'; };
  // many other methods declared here, but defined someplace else
};

// maybe even in some other file
MyClass.prototype.foo = function () { console.log('Foo'); };

// Use it the same way as before `class`
var myObj = new MyClass();
myObj.foo();

Since ES6 classes make things easier, I am pretty sure people will start using them and they will not be removed in the future.

As for your code example, you do it the same way as class is just syntactical sugar. It does not change how stuff works under the hood.

@mevrael: Question for you, since I get the feeling you do not understand that expression, yet: What do you think the term syntactical sugar means? . Since I am nice, here the solution: Write something differently (mostly shorter and more pleasing), but still do the same.

"JS always had classes before" - do you know what class is and how it is different from prototypes? How OOP in jS is different from all other OOP you know?

Do you know what "this" in JavaScript means?

What you wrote is called a "constructor function".

About your "example" this is how it is done in JS even shorter using object literal notation and ES6:

const MyClass = {
  foo() {
    console.log('Foo')
 }
}
MyClass.foo();

As for my code example you didn't wrote your code using ES6 class. Can you?

You have form with ID form1;
Form has <input type="text" name="elements">
Show me a code of class in ES6 which will return real elements collection (array of all inputs) of this form - document.forms.form1.elements
What you need to do is to call elements getter descriptor on parent/prototype from child

Also how you can create (non)enumerable, non(configurable) properties using ES6 class syntax?

@mevrael I am not sure what you want. The class keyword generates nothing else than a constructor function. Just with an easier syntax. .prototype and .constructor are still the same as before. And your task: isn't it something like Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('#form1 [name=elements]')) ?

@maruru Mev-Real is right. JS is strongly object orientated, not class orientated. There isn't something like a class in JS (even now with the class keyword) and this is good. Don't project the classes of other languages into JS.

@lichtjaeger I never said JS was class oriented. Maybe I oversimplified my example. The thing is, you always could make something which looks a lot like a class. It can be a function and an object at the same time as well. JS is really open for many concepts. So yeah. It's not a real class. But for simplicity and the point of my argument: If you want something to be (something like) a class, it has always been possible, even more so now that we have the class keyword. Making a statement like "classes (and new; taken from sources) were introduced with ES6, making everything more complex. JS never had classes before" is just wrong.

Search Hashnode