Re: conventions for prollyfills

As archive for anything strictly web related, bower is what npm stays for
node.js.

http://bower.io/

Most if not all modules in there are based indeed in RequireJS and AMD
where both solved the "don't want to load many times the same thing" a
while ago and no prollyfill is needed ;-)

You might use both services together or just bower or just requirejs
configured for your own needs.

Cheers


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:55 AM, François REMY <
francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

> > [polyfills end up shipping the same base-polyfills multiple times].
> > [we should have a way to reuse code in this case]
>
> I agree on the principle. I faced similar considerations at some point,
> wondering how multiple polyfills could reuse the same base infrastructure
> without harming performance or usability.
>
> I think the only reasonable option is to use a module system. This allows
> to refer to any polyfilled module, and since there are "module packers"
> available, it enables people to create a single js file tailored for their
> real usage, possibly combining multiple polyfills.
>
>
>
> That being said, the more I think about it, the more I believe the global
> namespace is a bad place to live in, even if they are simply cases where
> you need to be there.
>
>
>
> I would be tempted to wait until ES6 is finalized before making any
> recommendation, but I'm pretty sure someone will comes up with an
> ES6-module polyfill and maybe we should settle on that one. In the mean
> time, I would probably advise the use of AMD/RequireJS or something alike.
>
> Maybe we should recommend building modules for every polyfill from now on
> to favor code reuse across polyfills.
>