Hi Philip
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:33 AM, <philip.chime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm planning to continue porting forward to subsequent versions of
> SpiderMonkey until we have ES6 modules. (They seem to be nearly finished.)
> I wouldn't spend time rewriting the module system only to have it replaced
> by ES6 modules later on...
>
this basically means for the next 5 years GJS won't be able to interact
with modules published to npm
`require` is quite a simple feature to implement ... it doesn't have to be
a full 1:1 nodejs port, it needs to resolve synchronously some folder/file
and invoke the content via a closure.
This could be done on JS side too, I have the logic working in jsgtk
already.
> Yes, my opinion is this should have been done from the beginning; it's
> strange that it works for properties but not for methods. I support this
> but only if it turns out we can do it without breaking existing code and
> without imposing a performance burden. I would probably not do the
> transformation on the JS side for performance reasons. If I were able to
> find out the C++ code where it would need to be done, and outline an
> approach, would that make it comfortable enough for you to work on it?
>
looking at examples I've seen here and there it's about exporting also
`someThing` beside `some_thing` and since everything I've seen from GObject
side is ASCII named, I don't think this should be a big deal.
However, object properties should also reflect camelCase and maybe the
feature could be delivered behind a flag.
> I have some vague ideas about this that need fleshing out. What from jsgtk
> do you consider made it the most fun and cool? It would be good to know
> where we could make the most gains first.
>
> Philip
>
fun and cool was the ability to use ES6 right away (transpiled at runtime,
not an option as it is for very big project) and require npm modules using
same package manager everyone else in the JS ecosystem is using these days.
This plus the abilty to use camelCase and extend native classes in a ES6
fashion such `class MyButton extends Gtk.Button {}` ... instead of passing
through the old MooTools style class approach.
Best Regards
_______________________________________________
javascript-list mailing list
javascript-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list
