Harmony modules feedback

Mariusz Nowak medikoo+mozilla.org at medikoo.com
Mon Jan 16 07:51:00 PST 2012



rauschma wrote:
> 
> I think introducing new language constructs for modules is good, because
> they are so fundamental.
> 

+1


rauschma wrote:
> 
> For incrementally migrating old code bases, it would make a lot of sense
> to allow ES.next modules to import AMDs and vice versa.
> 

-1

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly, but trying to support backwards
what was never a standard is probably not good idea, and AMD didn't get that
much momentum to make exception for that, for many it's still controversial.


rauschma wrote:
> 
> Furthermore, npm’s ability to install modules locally and to let local
> modules shadow global ones is a very smart way out of version hell. It
> would be nice to have something similar for ES.next modules, but it’ll be
> harder to do for browsers (as opposed to for Node.js and local file
> access)
> 

It belongs rather to packages concept not modules (at least in that way it
originated from CommonJS).
Currently I can't imagine any need for packages implementation in browsers.
It's strictly just server-side and I assume it's fine to not have it
standardized

-- 
Mariusz Nowak
twitter: http://twitter.com/medikoo
github: https://github.com/medikoo

-----
Mariusz Nowak

https://github.com/medikoo
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Harmony-modules-feedback-tp33125975p33148342.html
Sent from the Mozilla - ECMAScript 4 discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the es-discuss mailing list