As a noder, I'm like half-way with you.
In javascript, as with other languages, you can totally use inheritance (prototypal in js) when making things. But, it's usually better to expose an object than a constructor (imo) when it comes to exports. Being expected to do something like:
var Foo = require('foobar').Foo;
var Bar = function (opts) {
Foo.call(this, opts);
this.baz = "biff";
}
require('util').inherits(Bar, Foo);
This sort of behavior is all well-and-good, but it should be contained because it's boilerplate-y. In javascript, at least, it's not a very good pattern, and I suspect this carries over to other environments (to an extent).
I also think that standard libraries have to strike a balance between "batteries included" and "not cluttered with a bunch of crap that was relevant in 1995", and that different standard libraries attempt this in different ways. I think python neglects the latter to supply the former, while node swings the other way and compensates by having a really nice package manager. Time will tell which is a better approach, but I'm betting on Node's model.
> The "radical reusability" section is just the author realizing that modules are awesome. Again, welcome to the party.
Modules are awesome! You sound like a python guy, meaning your module system is actually pretty good when it comes to qualified imports. Compare python imports to ruby's require, or browser-side script tags sometime, and I think you'll find that there's an awareness problem when it comes to qualified imports. :( That said, the package management side is kinda shitty for python (at least when compared to npm).
In javascript, as with other languages, you can totally use inheritance (prototypal in js) when making things. But, it's usually better to expose an object than a constructor (imo) when it comes to exports. Being expected to do something like:
This sort of behavior is all well-and-good, but it should be contained because it's boilerplate-y. In javascript, at least, it's not a very good pattern, and I suspect this carries over to other environments (to an extent).I also think that standard libraries have to strike a balance between "batteries included" and "not cluttered with a bunch of crap that was relevant in 1995", and that different standard libraries attempt this in different ways. I think python neglects the latter to supply the former, while node swings the other way and compensates by having a really nice package manager. Time will tell which is a better approach, but I'm betting on Node's model.
> The "radical reusability" section is just the author realizing that modules are awesome. Again, welcome to the party.
Modules are awesome! You sound like a python guy, meaning your module system is actually pretty good when it comes to qualified imports. Compare python imports to ruby's require, or browser-side script tags sometime, and I think you'll find that there's an awareness problem when it comes to qualified imports. :( That said, the package management side is kinda shitty for python (at least when compared to npm).