Module naming and declarations
rossberg at google.com
Thu Apr 25 07:05:54 PDT 2013
On 25 April 2013 14:56, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The focus should be on creating the best possible module system not
>> the best possible system that
>> smoothly accommodates AMD modules!
> Amen to that! I would add "or Node modules" to your last sentence above.
> The Node ship sailed, by my count, about three years ago. Competing
> feature-by-feature with AMD/Node modules should be an explicit non-goal. As
> should interoperability, for reasons which we could go into in another post.
I would actually disagree with that. I think interoperability is an
important goal. But making interoperability maximally convenient less
so, and in particular, it should not be a reason to heavily compromise
on the design.
Having said that, interoperability with existing module systems was
not the main motivation for the change in the proposal, as far as I
can tell. It rather was simplicity (which is debatable, as I hope I've
made clear), and convenient support for common configuration and
concatenation use cases. You could count the latter as "easy
interoperability with an existing deployment tool like `cat'", if you
are so inclined. Notably, though, that doesn't work with AMD either.
More information about the es-discuss