Harmony modules feedback

Mariusz Nowak medikoo+mozilla.org at medikoo.com
Tue Jan 17 03:34:25 PST 2012



James Burke-5 wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Mariusz Nowak
> <medikoo+mozilla.org at medikoo.com> wrote:
>> The point is that there are two ways of thinking of modules, first is
>> fine
>> grained, when you care about DRY then your modules are rather small, it
>> means that with AMD you would need to load hundreds of such modules
>> asynchronously it wouldn't work even in dev environment.
> 
> This is provably false. You normally do not need hundreds of modules
> to build a site. 
> 

I wasn't theorizing, I was talking about real applications that are already
produced.


James Burke-5 wrote:
> 
> *But more importantly*, harmony modules also seem to be designed to
> allow a separate request for each module. So your dislike of that
> attribute will not go away with harmony modules. Harmony modules may
> not need the function wrapper around the code as AMD does, but the
> network request behavior will be similar to AMD.
> 

I think Harmony modules have more in common with CommonJS than with AMD, and
transition from CommonJS will be easier than from AMD. See slides 86-89 from
http://www.slideshare.net/medikoo/javascript-modules-done-right (it's
presentation I've done once on local Warsaw meetup)

Of course Harmony will allow you to load each module separately, but with
default syntax I understand it will work synchronously, I'm not sure we will
do that for large number of modules. For asynchronous loading you may use
dynamic loader which I think would be great to load bigger module
dependencies.

-- 
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-tp33125975p33153466.html
Sent from the Mozilla - ECMAScript 4 discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the es-discuss mailing list