I think it's fair to say that people who want to write object-oriented Javascript are very excited by class. Those of us who have found that the non-OO nature of Javascript is part of what makes it so productive are... much less excited.
JavaScript is object oriented just like any other language. The difference is that it is prototype-based OO instead of class-based OO.
I would say that JavaScript's OO is actually more powerful/flexible than other languages but it is less readable and more error prone if you're not careful - For example, the fact that objects can 'borrow' a method from other object an apply it to themselves is a common source of issues for beginners.
Flexibility is not 'bad' - it's a tradeoff. More flexible languages are better for writing DSLs, etc; but using them means a lot of self discipline regarding code style.
One thing I wish JS had is a PEP8-style canonical style document. I would find that more useful than classes.
On classes, I am among the less excited about them; however, we are in a ridiculous situation where there are about 500 different library implementations of class inheritance. Backbone has one. Ember has one. Node has util.inherits. Various transpile-to-JS languages (CS, TS) all have their own slightly-different implementations of the resulting prototype code. There is plainly a need for classes in JS, felt by some of the leading projects in JS land.
ES6 classes at least gives all these disparate implementations a refactoring target. How many of them will get there is another matter.
> using them means a lot of self discipline regarding code style.
That's bad. Few developers have self-discipline. The ones who do still have different rules than you do. That makes reading, understanding, and modifying their code harder. Sounds bad, doesn't it?
There's a reason the most experienced devs rage against extremely flexible languages like PHP and JavaScript and are excited about new, ultra-rigid languages.
A lot of other languages makes you write a lot more code for some things that js can express very shortly. I usually find that the js version is more readable. The problem, I think, is that most programmers are used to class-based inheritance and not prototypical inheritance.
Yup. The class keyword is a huge step backward, and it was only put it because of a very different world several years ago when all this was put into motion. It is just a wrapper around prototypal inheritance, but hides a lot of the features in favor of making things look like other OOP languages, even though it isn't.
It is also very debatable if classic OOP is even good at all. JS was heading in the right direction, with more functional approaches, factory based object creation, etc... and now it's all back to square one.
Fortunately I work on a product where most devs have functional programming backgrounds, so the argument isn't too hard to make. But I fear for the community in general.
