Hacker News Reader

Comment by praptak | Hacker News Reader

"Which is what #67 says."

Nope, it says exactly what I quoted ("prototyped properties"). It also provides an example that happens to be of the later kind (properties set on existing prototype.)

"It is not true if you assign a new object to the prototype

Which is a completely different thing."

Completely different from everything that falls under "prototyped properties"? I disagree.

All in all, my point is that if you don't know exactly how it works then there is a chance you might be misled by this #67. I am not arguing that it is "wrong".

View on HN

It says "all objects of the same constructor", which can be losslessly translated to "all objects with the same prototype that were created using JavaScript's retarded way of trying to look kind of like a class-based OO language when really it's not at all".

If you change an object's prototype, that object is no longer "of the same constructor". "Ninja.prototype = { 'swingSword' : ...}" is, in fact, a completely different, far more dramatic action than "Ninja.prototype.swingSword = ..." You shouldn't at all have the expectation that the two are anything alike.

It's rather "expanded using knowledge about Javascript object model plus subjective opinion about JS being retarded" than "losslesly translated".

Given that said knowledge is the knowledge that the slides are meant to convey, we have some circular reasoning here.

I didn't say JS was retarded, I said the particular way it tries to look like a class-based OO language even though it isn't was retarded.

Given that you were critiquing #67 as though you thought you already understood the information, I felt it was fair game to call you out for being wrong about it. Apologies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com