Ok... I'm intereseted to hear you explain that. How does giving JavaScript proper prototypes like real OOP languages finally making it easier to use objects to do what objects are for, "mollycoddling"?

It's one of the big issues with how Objects are handled in older JS. Take the batshit crazy hoops one had to jump through just to create a new prototype without screwing up the old one. "apply" and "construct" don't even come close to providing the same functionality, nor does Object.defineproperty / ies do it.

As I'm about to show in the next article where I extend RefListNode into collisionBox and then collisionBox becomes "wall", "brick", and "paddle". Just as RefList will be extended into playfield with both render() and testCollisions(ball) methods.

Doing that without classes is a shit-show of convoluted hard to follow code. Honestly might be part of why so many people bitch about objects being "hard", they've never had the opportunity to use them properly.

A laugh since the DOM is basically built around said functionality.... Element inheriting from Node, HTMLInputElement inheriting from Element, etc, etc.

I don't see giving JavaScript a proper object model to be "mollycoddling"... given that JS objects traditionally make the sloppy kludge that is C++ look good. Maybe that decade of programming in Ada gives me a different perspective on that.

But seriously, can you explain why you see it as such?