Modules: Curly Free
quildreen at gmail.com
Tue Apr 23 05:59:49 PDT 2013
On 23 April 2013 09:34, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> On 22 April 2013 17:03, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> >> The more convincing argument would be interop with those legacy
> >> modules. But the magic for that will be in custom loaders, and AFAICS,
> >> the problems (and solutions) will likely be the same in either
> >> approach.
> > Yes, custom loaders can interop but as you say, people will have to do
> > something if they want to rewrite to ES6 modules (and Node people may do
> > this soon because they don't have downrev browsers to contend with).
> > When all those (majority share NPM modules) authors rewrite, what should
> > they have to say? "it", really?
> You assume that everybody will just want to transplant their
> NPM-specific modularity conventions to ES6 unchanged. I don't know if
> that is true. In any case, I don't expect that "default" will make
> them any happier.
What remains to be seen is whether people writing CommonJS/AMD modules
today will want to move to ES6 modules at all ;3
Quildreen "Sorella" Motta (http://killdream.github.com/)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss