> In ES6 classes provide nothing more additional than the closures already in use via a bit of extra utility code.
ES6 classes are sugar over prototypes, not closures. Insisting that ES6 classes aren't classes requires at the very least a basic understanding of how they are implemented.
> Do you know what classes actually do in a real OO language
JavaScript is a real OO language. Do you mean class-based?
> are you just a fanboy of JS?
Surprising vitriol here and makes you lose all credibility. Why does stating a couple of facts imply that you are a fanboy of JS?
> Also, using shims or translators proves nothing. I can write in C++ and use translators to convert that to JS. What is the point here exactly?
The point is that you stated that ES6 and ES7 code don't work cross-browser. Using Babel means that they do.
> Adding extra confusing junk onto a weak language does not make the language "better", especially when the standards you are recommending people to learn aren't even finalized.
Where exactly did he make this argument?
ES6 classes are sugar over prototypes, not closures. Insisting that ES6 classes aren't classes requires at the very least a basic understanding of how they are implemented.
> Do you know what classes actually do in a real OO language
JavaScript is a real OO language. Do you mean class-based?
> are you just a fanboy of JS?
Surprising vitriol here and makes you lose all credibility. Why does stating a couple of facts imply that you are a fanboy of JS?
> Also, using shims or translators proves nothing. I can write in C++ and use translators to convert that to JS. What is the point here exactly?
The point is that you stated that ES6 and ES7 code don't work cross-browser. Using Babel means that they do.
> Adding extra confusing junk onto a weak language does not make the language "better", especially when the standards you are recommending people to learn aren't even finalized.
Where exactly did he make this argument?