Consider avoiding object-style initializers

[tjvr]

While convenient for an expert, the current initialiser style:

new Sprite({
  costume: '⛄',
  angle: 10,
  // ...
})

...is way harder for a beginner than the following would be:

var snowman = new Sprite
snowman.costume =  '⛄'
snowman.angle = 10
// ...

The levels of nesting/brackets etc are a massive pain to manage for someone new to programming or new to JavaScript.

And as a bonus, this way we don't have to teach them separate syntaxes for initialisation and for changing things later.

@PullJosh @jamesdoc @ISNIT0 Thoughts?

I'm also considering replacing forever(() => {…}) with sprite.forever(() => {…}).

[PullJosh]

This is definitely a good idea. 👍

[tjvr]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm-a do this.

[tjvr]

What are our thoughts on this? :-)

I'm also considering replacing forever(() => {…}) with sprite.forever(() => {…}).

[PullJosh]

I suppose i'm not opposed to it, but I'm not sure I see a clear benefit either.

[tjvr]

• Nesting/indentation is hard to get right.
• If it begins with the same sprite name, it makes clear that it should go at the same level of indentation as the rest of the sprite attribute assignments.
• It also makes the lifecycle clearer, since when the sprite is destroyed the forever will stop; less frequent need for the (imho confusing) return false to stop the forever loop.
• I think it also acts as documentation, to indicate which object the forever is associated with. Sometimes beginners forget which forever is for which sprite.