> Have you looked at the implementations of classes in jQuery, Prototype, Mootools, Dojo, etc?
Yes, and jQuery doesn't implement classes.
> I care about providing the most accurate information I can to the benefit of others.
By calling other people fanboys after they provided a link?
> ES5, ES6, etc are not cross-browser compatible.
I guess it depends on your definition of cross-browser compatible, but ES5 is what, 5 years old now? I guess it doesn't work on IE8, but by that definition ES3 isn't cross-browser compatible because it doesn't work on IE1.
As for ES6, it's cross-browser compatible in the same way that CoffeeScript is, with the added benefit that it'll work natively in most browsers in a few years.
> My last paragraph is in reference to the fact that JS/Ecmascript have never truly been "fixed". It is just a constant hodgepodge of whatever vendors decides to add on to the language.
That's really not the case anymore.
Yes, and jQuery doesn't implement classes.
> I care about providing the most accurate information I can to the benefit of others.
By calling other people fanboys after they provided a link?
> ES5, ES6, etc are not cross-browser compatible.
I guess it depends on your definition of cross-browser compatible, but ES5 is what, 5 years old now? I guess it doesn't work on IE8, but by that definition ES3 isn't cross-browser compatible because it doesn't work on IE1.
As for ES6, it's cross-browser compatible in the same way that CoffeeScript is, with the added benefit that it'll work natively in most browsers in a few years.
> My last paragraph is in reference to the fact that JS/Ecmascript have never truly been "fixed". It is just a constant hodgepodge of whatever vendors decides to add on to the language.
That's really not the case anymore.