It can't be made syntax, because `var System = {};` is valid code, and we
can't break the web. (seriously)On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <[email protected]> wrote: > Make “System” syntax, and there you go. > > Instead we have multiple ad-hoc random additions to random keywords just > because someone needs something and since there are rarely any long-term > design decisions anymore, we’re stuck with new.target, function.sent, > import.meta (add your own) > > Seriously. How is new.target is “syntax that has context information”, but > System.whatever cannot be provided with context information because it’s > API? > > > > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:26 Jordan Harband <Jordan Harband > <jordan+harband+%[email protected]%3E>> wrote: > >> > There’s nothing stopping you from providing context to System.load. Or >> Loader.import, or… >> >> Those are APIs. It is, in fact, impossible to provide context with API, >> since it's just normal functions - it must be with syntax. >> >> Additionally, please don't use sexual language, especially in a >> derogatory manner - that's against TC39's code of conduct, and I'm quite >> sure it won't be tolerated on this list. >> >> Criticism that's purely insult, and doesn't actually explain the cons of >> something, is also not productive or useful. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Gil Tayar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Myself, and tens of programmers I know, use ES6 modules (and their >>> precursors, CommonJS modules) for years now and can't even believe there >>> was a time when they didn't exist, given that they have totally transformed >>> (in a good way) the way we work. And that is also the vibe I am getting >>> from the community (twitter, blog posts, meetups, etc). So when you say >>> that modules are "redundant and unnecessary on the server-side. and >>> [...]continue to fail to solve an relevant pain-point for everyday >>> programmers on the frontend-side now", I believe you are not talking about >>> myself or about the community I surround myself with. >>> >>> - Gil Tayar >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM kai zhu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > I’m curious what the concerns were. You mentioned disliking the >>>> syntax, but I’m guessing there’s more to it than that? >>>> >>>> the concern is that es modules are starting to look like a solution in >>>> search of a problem. its redundant and unnecessary on the server-side. >>>> and it continues to fail to solve an relevant pain-point for everyday >>>> programmers on the frontend-side now, or in the foreseeable future, while >>>> creating new ones. >>>> >>>> > I’ve been experimenting with ES Modules over HTTP 2 for a few months. >>>> I used rollup to create my dep graph without actually bundling, then served >>>> requested modules as entry points with a server push for their deps. I >>>> imagine that it won’t be long brolefore generic tooling for this sort of >>>> approach emerges (my own solution is pretty hacky, just wanted to see how >>>> it might work). >>>> >>>> for most projects, dep-graph and tree-shaking have marginal benefits in >>>> frontend programming, given their complexity. for all that extra work and >>>> boilerplate, the result is typically not anymore smaller, more efficient, >>>> or more maintainable than a pre-es6 rollup file. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
