Developer advocate, full-stack engineer, startup co-founder & CTO, bringing 15 years of experience in Silicon Valley, including at Google and Yahoo!. Public speaker.
Location
🌐
Education
UC Santa Cruz Extension
Work
Developer Advocate at Weaviate, the open-source semantic search engine
Doing software development since I can remember. Big fan of the JavaScript and Rust ecosystems. Long-time Java and JavaScript developer. Music producer wanna-be. ;)
Location
Warsaw, Poland
Work
Software Architect | Senior Full-stack Java/JS Developer at ISOLUTION
Actually that's not cleaner. You're breaking the constructor contract, which, by definition, should return an instance of the class, not some "random" value. While ECMAScript permits this, a constructor always has a concrete role. Here, this role is broken - the constructor is not a constructor anymore: it's a async factory function which is wrapped in a class. If anything, that's more code to write than a simple function.
There's an even cleaner solution.
Actually that's not cleaner. You're breaking the constructor contract, which, by definition, should return an instance of the class, not some "random" value. While ECMAScript permits this, a constructor always has a concrete role. Here, this role is broken - the constructor is not a constructor anymore: it's a async factory function which is wrapped in a class. If anything, that's more code to write than a simple function.
Exactly my thoughts here as well! 👌