Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You make a good case that my complaints may be more about JavaScript’s failure to follow the form/implementation of OOP preferred by me, rather than its own failings.

And yet, there’s something that feels disturbingly ad hoc about JavaScript’s evolution. You allude to the fact that JS developers don’t use property procedures (and some programmers believe they’re a net negative in an OOP language), and yet JavaScript is apparently going down the path of adding them in the near future. Similarly, classes were grafted on in a mostly-but-not-completely overlapping way very late in JavaScript’s evolution. This wobbling between different visions of OOP doesn’t inspire my confidence that JavaScript has gotten OOP right — even if I have to admit the limitations of treating the C#/Java approach as being perfect and canonical.