TC39 vs "the community"

John Barton johnjbarton at
Fri Jun 20 14:29:41 PDT 2014

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at> wrote:

> I am trying to stay outside this discussion as much as I can but there is
> a specific sentence that I'd like to understand:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, John Barton <johnjbarton at>
> wrote:
>> The ES5-module using community tried, valiantly, to reach a compromise
>> module solution. They were not successful.
> how 80K modules mentioned by Domenic, the concrete adoption of CommonJS or
> the usage of Browserify for most of the web, can be defined exactly a
> failure?

Individually both node modules and amd modules are a huge success. I was
only referring to the unsuccessful effort at convergence.

> I am not sure ES6 modules have been overlooked since the beginning but I
> believe that the rest of "the real-world" in production out there will keep
> doing just fine with current inline or AMD based `require("module")` logic.
> A new ES6 syntax, unfortunately unable to be brought over a UML (Unified
> Module Loader) as it has done before, will also take much longer to became
> a de-facto standard as `require` has become these days.
> Here probably the "community" sentiment Domenic mentioned, everyone I know
> somehow applauded fat arrow, nobody I know reacted differently from
> "WTF?!?" about ES6 modules.

> That being said, as complex and powerful APIs can be wrapped and brought
> to simpler libraries, maybe we actually will keep using `require` but with
> `import ES6 from "module"` behind the scene so everyone might win?

To the best of my knowledge, nothing in ES6 prevents you from continuing to
use `require()`.  If you think require() is the perfect module system, then
use it.   I think the ES6 module system is better and I plan to use it. If
we ever stop talking about it and ship it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list