Received: by 10.68.33.67 with SMTP id p3mr1030114pbi.25.1306269217914; Tue, 24 May 2011 13:33:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: commonjs@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.3.33 with SMTP id 33ls1626320wfc.1.gmail; Tue, 24 May 2011 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.230.4 with SMTP id c4mr381771wfh.37.1306269215754; Tue, 24 May 2011 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6830A746-172A-4374-9E8C-E4378A581C8F@gmail.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.742.60 Safari/534.30,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: Subject: Re: New amd-implement list From: johnjbarton To: CommonJS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On May 24, 1:02=A0am, Tom Robinson wrote: > The problem isn't with AMD (at least not the older versions), it's the id= ea that AMD should be an authoring format. I know that the first reaction to my following comment will be rejection. I urge you to take an open mind. I think AMD should be the authoring format. While it was proposed by Burke, in my view this outcome was discovered by the CommonJS groups collective action.I came into CommonJS expecting to use Modules 1.1, but in the end, AMD is the solution that makes sense. AMD supports module loading across platforms, the goal of a common JS. The syntax is "declare-first", not boilerplate. The factory function in AMD is just a function that returns the export. So all of the module structure right at the top of the file where we declare the dependencies and their local bindings. It's a very clear and straight forward model. If you have not written code using AMD (without require/exports/etc), try it. Yes, it makes some module code incompatible and I don't know the best path for that code. But for the vast amounts of script tag code are yet to be converted to modules I think AMD is a good choice. I believe new participants offer new solutions because the goal of the group is so compelling and the divide is so obvious. Everyone wants to find a way to the goal or produce the compelling argument that unites the group. It's a noble goal, but one, I fear, that is out of reach.