JavaScript loader comparison

I made a slightly more in-depth comparison between HeadJS and RequireJS.<p><a href="http://www.peterbe.com/plog/requirejs-vs-headjs" rel="nofollow">http://www.peterbe.com/plog/requirejs-vs-headjs</a><p>(in the end I decided to use HeadJS but just the loader)

while letting anyone with a link view it is not a bad idea, giving anyone editing rights was certainly not a good one :)

It's good to see lots of script loaders. It's interesting that CommonJS modules aren't more widely supported in that list of loaders. Here are some more CommonJS loaders:<p><a href="http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS#Implementations" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS#Implementations</a><p>ECMAScript modules can't come soon enough.<p><a href="http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#modules" rel="nofollow">http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#modules</a>

Is there really an advantage of loaders over using something like sprockets and then minifying that single script file?

"HeadJS row 9: jewish" ... umm what?

Are these compatible with the scripts from Adsense or Facebook?