TC39 vs "the community"

[Andrea Giammarchi]

typo ...


```
var require = function (fromWhere) {
  return  import * from fromWhere
};
```

or something similar


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think tools made `require` the winning choice but about having both I am
> not sure I've read about dynamic folder such:
>
> `import _ from loDashFolder`
>
> if that's a thing then
>
> ```
> var require = function (fromWhere) {
>   return  import _ from loDashFolder
> };
> ```
>
> or whatever will be
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:29 PM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> 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 google.com>
>>> 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.
>>
>> jjb
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140620/0267f31e/attachment-0001.html>