> The question really is, why have sloppy-mode classes at all? Who wants or > needs them? >
Well, no one, really. But we shouldn't want big invisible switches or any new pragma-haunts either. You've said that my predictions are "wildly optimistic", and I'm going to have to push back. Let me, like the Ghost of Christmas Present, take you on a tour of the current state of the art in *interoperable* javascript modules, on this eve of 2013. Behold, UMD (Universal Module Definition), the "jewel" of the javascript community: https://gist.github.com/4402566 Everyone, and I mean *ev-er-y-one*, will be ecstatic when this scourge is beaten, burned, scattered, and wiped off the face of the Earth. Sure, Scrooges everywhere will say "Bah humbug! ES6 modules suck!", but it's laugh-out-loud ridiculous to think that anyone, anywhere would choose UMD over ES6 modules. A standardized module syntax is the #1 needed feature in javascript, bar none. We don't need to worry about adoption. Well, what about Node and NPM? There's a well-established module system in place which has some apparent incompatibilities with ES6 modules. What to do? Well, Node will move in the direction that it *has* to move: toward ES6 modules. Championing a legacy module system with well-known problems in the face of ES6 modules, as standardized by EcmaScript, is a non-starter. And ultimately, despite the gnashing of teeth over on Twitter, this will be a good thing for javascript users. { Kevin }
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
