http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/14/53209.aspxA while back a reader asked for a rundown on some of the design decisions we made when designing JScript .NET. That's a huge topic, but fortunately I started writing a book on the subject a few years ago that never found a publisher. Tell you what --en-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/14/53209.aspx#53210Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:00:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:53210AnuI have to tell you, the fact that Javascript protoyped objects are not first class dot net objects is very annoying. This ability would have been very welcome.http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/14/53209.aspx#53211Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:55:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:53211dave sandermani left msft for a few years and recently went back. as far as i'm concerned, the worst thing that happened while i was gone was the proliferation of the use of the non-word "performant". makes me cringe every time. otherwise, great article. :-) http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/14/53209.aspx#53212Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:16:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:53212Eric LippertDave: "performant" is a perfectly good word with a solid back-formation etymology, clear and obvious meaning, and has no suitable existing synonym, and is therefore a welcome addition to the language. Languages evolve. Do you also cringe at "process" as a verb? Because a hundred years ago, it wasn't. What about "contact" as a verb? Ditto. So you might as well complain about those while you're at it for all the good it will do you. Anu: I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "not first class .NET objects". JScript prototype objects are not CLR compilant, but they are certainly .NET objects. Can you clarify?http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/14/53209.aspx#53213Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:08:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:53213AnuI was looking to convert some code written for the Rhino Javascript engine with a java host program. Thus I would have liked to be able to access/call the JScript prototype objects from the equivilent CSharp host replacement. I think the only way I could do it would be turn things around and have the JScript code act as the host, and reference the CSharp code. Is it possible? What is the class of a JScript prototype object? like x.js import System; function test() { this.main = function() { Console.WriteLine("HELLO"); } } class fred { function getTest() { return new test(); } } with y.js using System; public class CSTest { public static void main(String [] args) { fred f = new fred(); f.getTest().main(); } } http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/14/53209.aspx#53214Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:44:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:53214Eric LippertI'm still not 100% sure that I understand what you're asking but I think I get the gist. If you're asking whether a JScript function declared in global scope that can be used as a constructor for a prototype object can be exposed as a class to a C# program -- no, we don't support that scenario. The strongly typed CLR class model and the dynamic prototype model do not work well together. That's one reason why we added traditional inheritance-hierarchy classes to JScript .NET.