On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am trying to stay outside this discussion as much as I can but there is > a specific sentence that I'd like to understand: > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, John Barton <johnjbar...@google.com> > wrote: > >> >> The ES5-module using community tried, valiantly, to reach a compromise >> module solution. They were not successful. >> > > how 80K modules mentioned by Domenic, the concrete adoption of CommonJS or > the usage of Browserify for most of the web, can be defined exactly a > failure? > Individually both node modules and amd modules are a huge success. I was only referring to the unsuccessful effort at convergence. > > I am not sure ES6 modules have been overlooked since the beginning but I > believe that the rest of "the real-world" in production out there will keep > doing just fine with current inline or AMD based `require("module")` logic. > > A new ES6 syntax, unfortunately unable to be brought over a UML (Unified > Module Loader) as it has done before, will also take much longer to became > a de-facto standard as `require` has become these days. > > Here probably the "community" sentiment Domenic mentioned, everyone I know > somehow applauded fat arrow, nobody I know reacted differently from > "WTF?!?" about ES6 modules. > > That being said, as complex and powerful APIs can be wrapped and brought > to simpler libraries, maybe we actually will keep using `require` but with > `import ES6 from "module"` behind the scene so everyone might win? > To the best of my knowledge, nothing in ES6 prevents you from continuing to use `require()`. If you think require() is the perfect module system, then use it. I think the ES6 module system is better and I plan to use it. If we ever stop talking about it and ship it. jjb
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss