> Guess what? In the real world, this model quickly leads to a multitude of issues. The most obvious example is that if a package is removed for any reason, chaos quickly spreads... That’s actually not the main problem though.<p>Not only is that not the main problem, that has nothing to do with the use of small components. The issue with removal of packages is caused by not having an immutable package repository, which is actually pretty easy to fix with a system like IPFS.<p>> A standard library could easily be added to JavaScript without years of committee infighting, stalled projects and failed approaches (remember the bat-shit craziness of E4X?). ES6 took 6 years to finalize and browsers to this day still don’t fully support it. There are plenty of successful and widely used libraries to draw inspiration (and implementation) for a first round from, like Underscore.js (and it’s predecessor in spirit, Prototype.js).<p>Since we already have underscore, backbone, express, bluebird, and all these other libraries, why would we want to end the competition by pulling them into the core and having to support them in a backwards-compatible way for years to come? These libraries basically are JavaScript's "standard library"... they just happen to be optional.