You probably right, actually I was a bit dreaming I think :)
In more it would mean that all the JS libraries we would use under the wood
would have to be packed in ES6 modules, not sure we could do that.
Now yes, I 'm curious too on what others think about emiting in ES5.
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX][FlexJS] Do we still want to use Google Closure
> Library? (was Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors)
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:58:15 +0000
>
>
>
> On 5/28/15, 8:40 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oops,
> >
> >Hmm, so at this point, why not emiting ES6 syntax and use ES6 polyfills
> >from babel ?
>
> Possible. I’m willing to go in this direction if that’s what folks want
> to do, but I always get nervous when I hear about polyfills. I’d rather
> avoid polyfills and just stay on ES5 unless there is a huge win. That way
> you don’t have to:
>
> 1) figure out when to load the polyfill
> 2) worry about bugs in the polyfill
> 3) have different debug experiences in different browsers
> 4) bundle the polyfills in the release
> 5) manage the licenses and other documentation around the polyfills.
>
>
> Also, IIRC, way back, it seemed like many folks have locked into a
> favorite JS loading mechanism like RequireJS. We are using goog.require.
> Going to a different ES6 module scheme may cause more resistance from
> folks wedded to a particular loading scheme.
>
> But I’ll go with what the majority wants.
>
> -Alex
>
>
