Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineer
the amount of my life that has been lost to "javascript just lets you do shit without throwing any errors or warnings"
1
1
1
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineerim becoming a c programmer after this at least c issues are exciting
2
0
1
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineeri will concede im pretty sure i see why this works (my guess is that this is how 'this' works) but i also hate it
4
1
1
1
0
0
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineer@rowan yes that, here i am wanting to subscript a thing in a thing but i subscripted the thing & went on a big dumb adventure to figure out what was wrong ~w~
1
0
2
Show content
@kirakira ES6 classes are not exactly the same but bear significant resemblance to constructor functions. for sake of simplicity, it’s easiest to say that ES6 classes are syntactic sugar on top of constructor functions. the major difference is that classes throw an error when attempting to construct them without the new keyword while a constructor function will have a corrupted state (notably, it will inherit the globalThis as its own this).
the following declarations are nigh-identical
class bitchA {}
function bitchB() {
if (!new.target) {
throw new TypeError("calling bitch constructor without new is invalid")
}
}
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineer
2
0
0
Show content
@kirakira both of them produce an Object, which is the same one you get when you use the object literal ({ foo: 1 }) syntax. these are all mutable by default (unless if you use one of the metaprogramming functions like Object.freeze or, more specifically, Object.preventExtensions which stops new properties from being added to an object)
0
0
2
you’re a real js programmer now (i’m sorry)
@kirakira call this at the end of your constructor :3 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/preventExtensions
1
0
0
Show content
@kirakira side note: strict mode fixes the globalThis issue in constructor functions
1
0
2
0
0
0
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineerShow content
@rowan i am learning so much :3
0
0
2
Therra 
@kirakira segmentation fault (core dumped)
0
0
1
d@nny disc@ mc²
hipsterelectron@circumstances.run
0
0
0
Frost, glow wolf 🐺
IceWolf@masto.brightfur.net
@kirakira see I'm looking at this going "...what's the problem?". >,,>
1
0
0
Frost, glow wolf 🐺
IceWolf@masto.brightfur.net
@kirakira course, I don't think of JS objects as Fixed Classes
to me they're more like dictionaries where some of the properties are functions you can call; it makes perfect sense to be able to just add properties to objects like this
but yeah it's Not C++ that's for sure!
1
0
0
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineer@IceWolf yeah see that was the mental model of js classes i didn't have
0
0
0
🌸 lily 🏳️⚧️ 
θΔ ⋐ & ∞
tauon@possum.city
@kirakira i don’t understand what your problem with this is unless i’ve missed something obvious (although i agree that javascript is annoying as someone who has programmed a lot in it)
1
0
0
Unforeseen Consequences
kirakira@furry.engineer@tauon prior to the understanding i now have my expectation would have been "hey that field doesn't exist" like in other languages that call things classes
0
0
0