Still the same point, unified API under single namespace, for the same reasons. ES.next will still exist in the same hostile web of today.
/Rick On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we are arguing different points: All I meant is – how would you > structure jQuery in ECMAScript.next (in the future, using the proposed > modules)? > > On Nov 5, 2011, at 1:14 , Rick Waldron wrote: > >> ...But that's not the point. The point is to have a _single_ namespaced, >> unified API; this helps keep the library small, reduces potential conflict >> with other libs, makes it easier to learn, easier to extend and easier to >> maintain. >> >> jQuery deals in reality, not the fantasy world of spec drafts and syntax >> bikeshedding, and that reality is the web _today_. To be clear, you're aware >> that jQuery supports a completely compatible API across all browsers that it >> supports, right? That means that nothing goes into jQuery that cannot be >> reproduced in... >> >> IE 6, 7, 8 & 9 >> Firefox 3.6, 6 & 7 >> Chrome 14, 15 >> Safari 5, 5.1 >> Opera 11.01, 11.5 >> >> It's not productive to suggest that jQuery has done some kind of "poor man's >> module" or that it could've done better if it had modules, or that it >> should, or even might be able to take advantage of some kind of bleeding >> edge ES.next Module system. jQuery promises that it will not break back >> compat from one release to the next, and when we do, we _hustle_ to get >> point release bug fixes out the door. When 24.6 million[1] sites are using a >> piece of code - because they can trust that it works and that it won't wreak >> havoc on their site from one version to the next. > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > [email protected] > > home: rauschma.de > twitter: twitter.com/rauschma > blog: 2ality.com > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
