<div dir="ltr">TL;DR: agree with keeping the ES6 on the branch<div><br></div><div>---<br><div><br></div><div>Keeping aside the personal preference, I believe that ES6 modules have huge potential in mobile applications space<div>since they are bringing so-needed structure and thus allow for compile-time optimizations (that are even more crucial on mobile than on desktop).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>But as Luke said, this is not feature that would talk to everyone.</div><div><br></div><div>What we got in ES6 branch is a solution that works for:</div><div>* global namespace users</div><div>* people preferring browser modules (AMD, but CommonJS is possible)</div><div>* people looking into the future with ES6</div><div><br></div><div>But how many people preferring one or another form of modules we can find?</div><div>I would agree with Luke's 10% of users considering the use of modules, and fraction of it using in current projects.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Unless we won't be proved to be wrong and we find a community members really trying the ES6 branch,</div><div>I would stay aside of it as suggested.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Our research definitely helped to prepare a path and if nothing else, it helped me understand deeply both, the Aerogear.js code and its build process.</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matzew@apache.org" target="_blank">matzew@apache.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Lucas Holmquist <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com" target="_blank">lholmqui@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">for those of you don’t use http based email, i’m looking at you qmx and abstractj, this might be a little ugly<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px;margin-top:0px!important">I want to start off by saying that i think ES6 modules are cool and that i like them.</p><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">I think the concern that i have in their current state is that there is to much "processesing" that needs to be done to make them work with existing browsers.</p><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">While this processing is done with automated grunt tasks, i feel that it puts to much "extra" code in the library for not that much reward.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>and therefore being slower than it should be right? legacy browsers ftw :)</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">Another concern with the processing is that it adds lots more development dependecies. One of which is upgrading to npm 2.0, which wasn't as straightforward as i was thinking.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>ouch</div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">I do want to commend Lukas, for all his hard work on the es6 modules branch, Good Work My Friend!!</p><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">As "developers on the edge"™ we are exposed to new shiny tech that we want to use right away like modules, AMD, browserfy, etc...</p><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">But i wonder about the other 90% and what they are looking for. Do they even care about AMD, etc...</p></div></div></blockquote></span><div>perhaps not, or not yet - especially when coming from "web development" for intranet apps, in traditional shops<br></div><span class=""><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">I think as a mobile library, we need to not add extra overhead.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>+9001</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:16px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,'Segoe UI',Arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:25.6000003814697px">But i think we should keep working on the ES6-modules branch and keep it up to date and direct people to that if they would like to try it.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I fully agree - also this is not throwing away work. This was a needed research, we came to a conclusion: not yet ready; but that does not mean, we won't be looking at it again, let's say in two years or so. times are changing fast.</div><div><br></div><div>great job, Luke and Lucas!</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Matthias Wessendorf <br><br>blog: <a href="http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/</a><br>sessions: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf</a><br>twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mwessendorf</a></div>
</font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>