User talk:2605:A601:A63B:F00:DC49:7F83:77F:937A

JavaScript Example
Hello, I'm PopoDameron. I reverted your edit on the JavaScript page because it appeared to add unnecessary complexity to the demonstration of a simple concept. It was also badly formatted. Please be careful when adding example code to articles, and reach out to me on my talk page if you have any concerns. Also check out MOS:CODE for more information. Thanks, PopoDameron (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi PopoDameron. I'm a subject matter expert in modern ECMAScript. The concept is actually important as the two examples (the one provided by me and the one of legacy JS already present) have some very important differences. In regards to the formatting do you mind being a little more specific so I can implement those changes; I reviewed the linked article but wasn't sure where my example fell short based on that. Thanks! 2605:A601:A63B:F00:DC49:7F83:77F:937A (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is mainly that you put that under the "simple examples" section. Having the basic outline for a simple object made sense there, but what you added was, even if utilising more modern syntax, much more bloated and filled with unnecessary complexities. Using a constructor and the 'new' keyword doesn't have to be complicated at all. No need to be throwing errors or defining that many functions or using advanced syntax in a simple object example. PopoDameron (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)