What if the Loader spec had some attention given to match AMD/CommonJS for some cases and leave the new syntax for the new module semantics. Really what we want is for non-es6 module systems to be able to hook into the loader registry in a way that makes sense for them and will also make sense for IMPORTING those modules into es6 modules. require/define work in browsers and in node TODAY, the conversation imo shouldn't be about giving those systems better syntax it should be about creating a single registry/loader that easily supports all paths.
- Matthew Robb On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM, John Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> Static checking on exported members feels odd. >>> >> >> Static checking of imports and exports has well-known advantages and >> would help the long-term viability of the language. >> > > Enumerating these specific advantages would inform this discussion. > These advantages are not well-known. Many developers have experienced the > disadvantages of complex systems of rules and thus favor simple solutions > over ones with theoretical advantages. Explaining the benefits concretely > would help them balance the well-known costs. > > jjb > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
