Modules: Curly Free
brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Apr 23 21:36:10 PDT 2013
Kevin Smith wrote:
> Or they may choose some other naming convention. Demonizing naming
> conventions is just plain silly.
No one demonized naming conventions. The fact is not having to agree on
a name is one less thing to hassle with, that's all.
> I think Quildreen provides an argument, no so much *for* default
> exports, but *against* declarative-binding modules.
No, that goes too far.
> I think we should consider the possibility that it will be impossible
> to make developers "happy" with a module system that is, by its very
> nature, less flexible than the dynamic one that they currently have.
That's certainly true, but so what? We can't have modules-as-objects
*and* synchronous require in browsers (Node cheats there). We're doing
modules to fill gaps in the language that objects and functions can't fill.
More information about the es-discuss