Brendan Eich (2014-01-28T00:57:36.000Z)
John Barton wrote:
>
>
>     It's pretty clear from NPM experience that a new suffix is not
>     needed for out-of-line modules. Or are you suggesting that Node.js
>     lacks tooling? I'm not offended, just trying to understand.
>
>
> What about the node experience helps? They have only one type of 
> input, modules, ergo only one suffix.

No, their non-module main programs are in files with names ending in .js.

>     For NPM read AMD/require.js too.
>
>
> Ditto.

No, <script src=foo.js> interops with AMD/require.js and the .js suffix 
is used everywhere.

/be
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-02-04T16:02:39.211Z)
John Barton wrote:

> What about the node experience helps? They have only one type of 
> input, modules, ergo only one suffix.

No, their non-module main programs are in files with names ending in .js.

> Ditto.

No, <script src=foo.js> interops with AMD/require.js and the .js suffix is used everywhere.