James Burke-5 wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Mariusz Nowak > <medikoo+mozilla....@medikoo.com> wrote: >> The point is that there are two ways of thinking of modules, first is >> fine >> grained, when you care about DRY then your modules are rather small, it >> means that with AMD you would need to load hundreds of such modules >> asynchronously it wouldn't work even in dev environment. > > This is provably false. You normally do not need hundreds of modules > to build a site. >
I wasn't theorizing, I was talking about real applications that are already produced. James Burke-5 wrote: > > *But more importantly*, harmony modules also seem to be designed to > allow a separate request for each module. So your dislike of that > attribute will not go away with harmony modules. Harmony modules may > not need the function wrapper around the code as AMD does, but the > network request behavior will be similar to AMD. > I think Harmony modules have more in common with CommonJS than with AMD, and transition from CommonJS will be easier than from AMD. See slides 86-89 from http://www.slideshare.net/medikoo/javascript-modules-done-right (it's presentation I've done once on local Warsaw meetup) Of course Harmony will allow you to load each module separately, but with default syntax I understand it will work synchronously, I'm not sure we will do that for large number of modules. For asynchronous loading you may use dynamic loader which I think would be great to load bigger module dependencies. -- Mariusz Nowak twitter: http://twitter.com/medikoo github: https://github.com/medikoo ----- Mariusz Nowak https://github.com/medikoo -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Harmony-modules-feedback-tp33125975p33153466.html Sent from the Mozilla - ECMAScript 4 discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
