I think tools made `require` the winning choice but about having both I am
not sure I've read about dynamic folder such:

`import _ from loDashFolder`

if that's a thing then

```
var require = function (fromWhere) {
  return  import _ from loDashFolder
};
```

or whatever will be

Best Regards



On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:29 PM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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/20140620/08e25679/attachment.html>

I think tools made `require` the winning choice but about having both I am
not sure I've read about dynamic folder such:

`import _ from loDashFolder`

if that's a thing then

```js
var require = function (fromWhere) {
  return  import _ from loDashFolder
};
```

or whatever will be

I think tools made `require` the winning choice but about having both I am
not sure I've read about dynamic folder such:

`import _ from loDashFolder`

if that's a thing then

```js
var require = function (fromWhere) {
  return  import _ from loDashFolder
};
```

or whatever will be

Best