This is an excellent take! 👏

That said you should strive to use both functions and classes. If you can simplify your functions to allow mostly any primitive input, that’s great. It can be reused many times throughout your code. But if you have certain operations that only work with one type, then don’t be afraid to use a class

This advice looks sound. I'll definitely take it into consideration.

I don’t like/use the class keyword in JS, because I quite like the paradigm with prototypes & stuff, and that keyword tries to make it fit into a totally different paradigm, which doesn’t really work IMHO.

I've read somewhere that Javascript is more of a prototype-oriented language rather than an object-oriented one. Do you agree with this?

BTW, I’ve developed a few strats to have my own style in TS that I like quite a lot. I can tell more if you’re interested.

Thank you! But maybe not right now; I'm still learning the basics. Have you considered write an article about it? 😮

Fun fact: I made this meme to explain my classmates static variables.

Never heard of Lemoa, but I will definitely try. Thanks! 👍

Yes. Spiders are the superior web developers. They're especially good at eliminating bugs.

Hey, this looks pretty good. Thanks! 👍

I think you should do what’s comfortable to you

Good advice, but I would like to expand outside of my comfort zone to learn different styles of programming.

but also try to adapt to the common language in each of the code bases you will be working on, so that everyone is on the same page.

Absolutely agree with you there.

Good luck in your journey!

Thank you! ❤️

TypeScript is next on my list. The loose typing of JavaScript drives me a little nuts sometimes 😅.

As long as you’re opting for composition over inheritance, it’s probably fine.

Totally agree with you there.

Probably on the “sparingly” end.

I'm on the same train of thought as you. I feel that relying too much on class ignores the better features that JavaScript has to offer. However, I'm sure that its application is useful on the occasion where inheritance IS (but very rarely) necessary.

Yes. This seems to be one of the common arguments against "classes": they're not exactly classes in the traditional sense, and everything you can do in JavaScript can be done so without touching the class keyword. It's basically syntactic sugar that adds more confusion to the language, or so I heard. I've read this article that explains the flaws behind with this feature: https://www.toptal.com/javascript/es6-class-chaos-keeps-js-developer-up

I quit after I got that...

I've never felt so identified by a meme.

I Imagine the merge conflict hell that these programmers have to go through...

Thank you for the advice. Unfortunately I couldn't upload a .gif version; the website throws the following error: SyntaxError: JSON.parse: unexpected character at line 1 column 1 of the JSON data. I image that this could be the result of a file being too big (the .gif version is 5.27MB). So at the end I decided to upload the .mp4 version (799 KB).

Two years later...

Stage 4.5: console.log() everything.

Applying the (DRY) Do Repeat Yourself principle.

Even if you DO escape, there is no guarantee that you'd leave with your sanity intact.

You would think that being named Null would probably cause a problem. But Jeffrey? lol

I'm starting to learn full-stack development. This meme scares me, ngl.