- From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:14:37 +0000
- To: Kyle Simpson <getify@gmail.com>
- Cc: "whatwg@lists.whatwg.org" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On 15 March 2014 00:31, Kyle Simpson <getify@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd say the first syntax is a bit verbose for what I was dreaming 4 years > ago when I started asking for a simple script preloading mechanism, but > it's just this side of acceptable. If we have to take the second approach, > I say that's unacceptably more verbose/complex and falls short of my > opinion of "everything we need for sane & versitile dependency loading". > It's everything we need but perhaps not everything we desire. Last time we went round with script loading the proposal for high-level dependency declaration got weighed down by use-cases that should have been left to lower level primitives. These are the lower level bits, something higher level is still possible. For legacy-free project, modules + promises for non-script assets are the answer. I updated my examples to deal with no guarantees of script order. A couple of forEachs were turned to reduces, that was it.
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2014 08:15:04 UTC