This seems like a bit too many issues, so let me just correct one (important) one.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:09 PM, John Barton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Now, I know there are people that think that this isn't not good, but it >>> is. It gives you a lot of power when debugging things or playing around >>> with new things (something I haven't seen discussed re:modules on this >>> list). One of the greatest things in JS is that instead of reading the >>> usually poor documentation, let alone the code, of something you want to >>> use you can just load it up in node or the developer tools and play around >>> with it. With node, you require() something in the repl and you see >>> immediately what it exports. >>> >> >> Loader.get() provides the module. >> > > Hmm, my bad, I actually thought that Loader.get() works only when the > module has already been fetched. > Your thought was correct: Loader.get() only works if the module is fetched. It was my impression that you were describing a debugging scenario where the module would be loaded and where you are likely to want to avoid module-loading since your goal is to debug the live image. > Well that improves things a lot but that still leaves the disparity > between what you'd write in actual code and the repl and thus fails to be > better (in this case) than for example CommonJS. > I expect devtools to support declarative import in their REPL, so the code you would write is the same. jjb
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
