> My opinion is that CommonJS and AMD work today and will continue to work > into the future so we should optimize for the ideal "looking forward, not > backward" case when adding to the language. >
I think this statement points the way to something that we haven't yet discussed. A general question that we can apply to any language enhancement is: does this change merely satisfy existing users, or does this change carry the potential to expand the user base? I would say that "Node-module-sugar" would merely satisfy existing users, but "real" modules have the capacity to expand the JS user base to into segments that want static checking to be a part of their workflow. So to me the path forward is clear: we keep real modules, axe the default feature, and take a temporary hit of dissatisfaction from existing users so that we can expand the JS user base. The overriding concern should be the long-term viability of JS.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
