I just think the idea of 1JS has already been compromised and really what we have is a spec that supports two almost-entirely different sets of expectations. The maintenance of keeping them of equal priority seems like it will only get worse over time. The `"use strict"` pragma is already sort of an opt-in to the new mode. To me the more graceful path forward is the one where the world as people know it stays the same but then there is an opt-in path for moving to the supersets of the future. Dong this once after having considered many of the issues of the old model seems reasonable to me specially with the amount of buy in people are doing on transpilers and even buy in on other languages/runtimes such as dart.
- Matthew Robb On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew Robb wrote: > >> I don't see why they have to? Traceur should be used as a build time tool >> that ultimately runs in legacy mode. Only REAL modern ES6 module >> implementations would run in this other world. Basically .es files today >> would be transpiled into .js files. >> > > I doubt people will do any such thing. We can have more suffixes (I was > against .js2 in particular -- that particularly confusing proposal was why > I unleashed the Nope-topus), but if people can adapt their existing > practices with AMD/Require/CommonJS modules and use just .js, I bet they > will. > > Tools will have to read metadata, tea-leaves, and etheric winds to keep > up. Same as ever. > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
