[jrsala]

There is a lot of wrong in this article: inability to articulate what polymorphism is, misunderstanding of prototypes, bad JS practices (`var`, `.__proto__`), falsehoods on programming languages including JS itself, confusion around ECS, unfinished examples... I suspect the author is in the early stages of their learning journey and Dunning-Kruger is in full effect.

[plexicle]

You might be right but your last sentence is the reason why people are apprehensive about sharing their work and writing more articles. There's no need for it.

[jrsala]

There is no judgment in what I said. DK is a fact of life and we will all experience it at some point. I know I have, and quite badly.

I wish when I was younger someone had told me "look, you don't really know what you're talking about, here's how things really work". If no one tells you, how long does it take for you to realize and how much time do you waste thinking you know what you don't know? Again, the author is at the start of their learning journey. I'm not saying they're a bad person or a hopeless case.

And finally, people should not be apprehensive about sharing their work in general, but I think they should be when writing articles that purport to teach others.

[astrobe_]

I'll dare to ask : but is there a need for articles made with half-baked knowledge?

[jollybean]

The problem is JS - it's been a fuzzy bit of confusion since inception, it was never remotely intended to do what it's doing, and nary a tiny fraction of JS developers could authoritatively explain the differences between prototype __proto__ etc. - I keep a chart handy as a reminder and much like C++ stick to a set of rules to avoid unknowns.

There's a reasonable chance that with a much more succinct and clean '20/20 hindsight' the articles like this would be either clear, or frankly unnecessary.