From 7e3e74fa5ba94260e6e9c5d64742f187b5dc21e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mustafa Kemal Tuna <12192118+lumosmind@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:50:42 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] "syntactic sugar" instead of "syntax sugar"

historically and in general use this phenomena is called as "syntactic sugar". I think we can change it for understand-ability and engineering convention.

https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/s/syntactic-sugar.htm
---
 1-js/09-classes/01-class/article.md | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/1-js/09-classes/01-class/article.md b/1-js/09-classes/01-class/article.md
index 4aaf52bd45..30ab6a71a9 100644
--- a/1-js/09-classes/01-class/article.md
+++ b/1-js/09-classes/01-class/article.md
@@ -116,9 +116,9 @@ alert(User.prototype.sayHi); // alert(this.name);
 alert(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(User.prototype)); // constructor, sayHi
 ```
 
-## Not just a syntax sugar
+## Not just a syntactic sugar
 
-Sometimes people say that `class` is a "syntax sugar" (syntax that is designed to make things easier to read, but doesn't introduce anything new), because we could actually declare the same without `class` keyword at all:
+Sometimes people say that `class` is a "syntactic sugar" (syntax that is designed to make things easier to read, but doesn't introduce anything new), because we could actually declare the same without `class` keyword at all:
 
 ```js run
 // rewriting class User in pure functions
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ let user = new User("John");
 user.sayHi();
 ```
 
-The result of this definition is about the same. So, there are indeed reasons why `class` can be considered a syntax sugar to define a constructor together with its prototype methods.
+The result of this definition is about the same. So, there are indeed reasons why `class` can be considered a syntactic sugar to define a constructor together with its prototype methods.
 
 Still, there are important differences.