Don’t tell Paul but I sometimes listen to the Boagworld podcast. I’m sharing this dark secret with you because recently the podcast featured a good interview with Christian Heilmann.
Christian talks about best and worst practices in writing JavaScript today. It’s well worth a listen.
But when the subject turns to Object Oriented Programming, Christian makes a pointed reference:
And there’s not much magic to it. I mean I get annoyed when I see JavaScript guys going on stage and saying like:
Well guys, this is a function and when it’s an object it’s a method and why should I know this?Well you should know this because you need to communicate with other developers as well sooner or later.
Um… that would be me. In my books, presentations and workshops I’ve often explained methods and properties as being like functions and variables, just within the scope of an object (hence the dot syntax). But I never, ever said And why should I know this?
What I was trying to do was explain objects using reference points that I think most people will understand. I know that for me personally I had a lightbulb moment when I grokked methods and properties as being like functions and variables. The whole point of explaining this terminology is precisely so that people can communicate with other developers. As Christian says:
And these people speak that lingo and rather than you having to explain yourself for 15 minutes you could communicate in 3 minutes.
Exactly! That’s why I think it’s important that I take the time to at least explain the terminology of objects (i.e. methods and properties) even if I don’t delve into the technical details. My aim, like Christian, is to encourage better understanding and communication.
Evidently Christian takes issue with my teaching techniques. That’s fine. But I wish he wouldn’t put words in my mouth by claiming that I’m telling people that they shouldn’t have to learn the terminology around JavaScript objects.
Then again… maybe his comment wasn’t aimed at me at all and there is some other conference speaker out there who is going around telling people that they don’t have to know what the words “method” and “property” mean. If that’s true, then I agree with Christian. Such exhortations are not useful. But in lieu of any source for Christian’s imaginings of what he thinks he heard, I’ll take the egotistical paranoid route and assume he’s talking about me.
Anyway, I guess I’ll have to make sure from now on that I’m clearer about what I’m saying. More importantly, I’ll have to make sure that I’m clear on what I’m not saying.


