I remember I started on an AMD emitter for Frank, it worked with his test classes. So I guess it will just be as I am writing it to keep everything separate that I can.
This is like dejava for the 3rd time, I love repeating things or something. Mike On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > IIUC, there's no ES5 spec to load modules, the reason why there are > RequireJS, AMD, UMD, CommonJS, maybe be I forget some and SystemJS used by > Babel because it uses the ES6 Syntax and handles the way others treat > circular references if there are packed into this ES6 specific format > except for RequireJS. > > Maybe someone else can correct me or detail more on that. > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:12:11 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX][FlexJS] Do we still want to use Google Closure > Library? (was Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors) > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > So staying on ES5 means still using goog correct? Josh did mention he > would > > prefer not to have that dependency, so that means there has to be > > alternatives to all your list items. > > > > So really in the JXEmitter's(Josh's use case) case I see an inheritance > and > > accessor "solution"(Babble outputs) but I don't see a dependency loader > > solution. I am missing something? > > > > I wish I was more knowledgeable in this area but sadly I am not. :) > > > > Mike > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS < > webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
