Shared publicly  - 
 
Am I the only one that finds AMD's plugin syntax gross? Yay magic string prefixes and name restrictions on modules. AMD also has way too many ways to do the exact same thing. :/

define(['dom!header'], function(node) {});

vs.

// Much better, what happened with AMD?!
define([['dom', 'header']], function(node) {});

http://requirejs.org/docs/plugins.html
Intro § 1. RequireJS allows you to write loader plugins that can load different types of resources as dependencies, and even include the dependencies in optimized builds. Examples of existing loader p...
1
Elliott Sprehn's profile photoPaul Irish's profile photo
3 comments
 
Certainly gross, but I dont know of a better way to write it for runtime.
Mostly just makes me think we should compile to AMD, instead of author in it.

The minispade approach in ember is particularly good looking these days.
 
Sorry I was only commenting on the current syntax, not your proposal. Yours is fine, but doesn't make the syntax requirements any less hairy for me.
Add a comment...