dignifiedquire at gmail.com (2014-06-21T08:54:21.746Z)
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 <johnjbarton at 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?
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?
Best
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 <johnjbarton at 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? 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? Best Regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140620/0f89115f/attachment.html>