Harmony modules feedback
medikoo+mozilla.org at medikoo.com
Mon Jan 16 07:51:00 PST 2012
> I think introducing new language constructs for modules is good, because
> they are so fundamental.
> For incrementally migrating old code bases, it would make a lot of sense
> to allow ES.next modules to import AMDs and vice versa.
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.
> 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
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
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