dignifiedquire at gmail.com (2014-06-21T08:55:00.344Z)
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at 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 <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?
>
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
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammarchi at 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 <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? > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140620/770927d0/attachment.html>