On 25 April 2013 14:56, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> The focus should be on creating the best possible module system not >> the best possible system that >> smoothly accommodates AMD modules! > > Amen to that! I would add "or Node modules" to your last sentence above. > The Node ship sailed, by my count, about three years ago. Competing > feature-by-feature with AMD/Node modules should be an explicit non-goal. As > should interoperability, for reasons which we could go into in another post.
I would actually disagree with that. I think interoperability is an important goal. But making interoperability maximally convenient less so, and in particular, it should not be a reason to heavily compromise on the design. Having said that, interoperability with existing module systems was not the main motivation for the change in the proposal, as far as I can tell. It rather was simplicity (which is debatable, as I hope I've made clear), and convenient support for common configuration and concatenation use cases. You could count the latter as "easy interoperability with an existing deployment tool like `cat'", if you are so inclined. Notably, though, that doesn't work with AMD either. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
