Uh, you were the one who suggested JS wasn't OOP-oriented. It's all JS to me. jQuery is just a function that's spits out adapter/decorator objects. Just as Angular, Knockout, Backbone, Ember, etc... are all just bloatworks that miss one critical point. We already had the V and the C pretty well covered. They're throwing a big veil of abstraction over one that was already there and worked fine. It's like webforms all over again only this time we're trying to pretend the client-side isn't already what it is rather than not there at all. And while yes, IMO, we should think of web apps as two separate apps, the client-side's concerns are localized enough that it's kind of silly to try and apply MVC to it (not that what any of this stuff does can really be called MVC or MV-whatever anyway). What is it with modern developers wanting frameworks to be the answer before they understood the question in the question in the first place? How do you even write this stuff without starting to feel a lot silly about the fact that you're just duplicating effort? Because at some point they all have to bind with the mechanisms already in place to bind to their own bindings and that's just stupid.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I do agree I missed writing "classical" OOP in there, but I guess I assume wrong when I think that people can fill in the blanks. Here is the jist of what I mentioned earlier - "Most frameworks provide abstractions over javascript that create the illusion of classical OOP".Angular doesnt! . I am talking about prototypes and the prototype chain there? You still think I am just throwing keywords in the air, in that previous sentence and dont understand javascript? You still think I am just writing crap there because ( fill in the blank! )?