> > You seriously made another module loader?
> Yeah. There are several reasons why:
> To create a new-feeling environment that is clearly not node,
> because you’re writing code that runs in node and IE9 and Chrome
> etc. It shouldn’t feel like any old node.js module.
Why shouldn't it feel like any old node.js module? Nearly all the work
in JS packaging of late has been to abstract the differences so that
we can use the well-established node packaging system on both ends.
We're already able to do it with stuff like babel and browserify.Using javascript to enhance the page to provide faster loading or other features is great, but it is important to have at least something on the page when javascript is not available.
If the code can run on the client as well as on the server, does this mean the client has direct database access?
How well does that work out for the number of required round-trips?
I don't think being backed by a major corporation means much.