On 15 March 2014 00:31, Kyle Simpson <get...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd say the first syntax is a bit verbose for what I was dreaming 4 years > ago when I started asking for a simple script preloading mechanism, but > it's just this side of acceptable. If we have to take the second approach, > I say that's unacceptably more verbose/complex and falls short of my > opinion of "everything we need for sane & versitile dependency loading". >
It's everything we need but perhaps not everything we desire. Last time we went round with script loading the proposal for high-level dependency declaration got weighed down by use-cases that should have been left to lower level primitives. These are the lower level bits, something higher level is still possible. For legacy-free project, modules + promises for non-script assets are the answer. I updated my examples to deal with no guarantees of script order. A couple of forEachs were turned to reduces, that was it.
