TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

RequireJS 2.0 draft

27 点作者 v33ra大约 13 年前

3 条评论

combataircraft大约 13 年前
RequireJS is very expensive and it's NOT CommonJS. It claims that CommonJS is not-optimal for browser and offers you to put your source code inside of an awkward container for optimizing. It's not smart.<p>Let me introduce you OneJS: <a href="http://github.com/azer/onejs" rel="nofollow">http://github.com/azer/onejs</a><p>It simply converts any CommonJS package into a single, stand-alone JavaScript file. It means, you can structure your client-side project just like a NodeJS project and you can convert your NodeJS project to a single file just like a client-side project.<p>Unlike Browserify, OneJS is unobtrusive [1], provides an accurate implementation of CommonJS specs [2] and the output it produces is suitable for splitting and having async dependencies.<p>[1] A chess website built with OneJS: <a href="http://multiplayerchess.com/mpc.js" rel="nofollow">http://multiplayerchess.com/mpc.js</a><p>[2] ExpressJS built with OneJS, with all dependencies: <a href="https://gist.github.com/2415048" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/2415048</a>
评论 #3915561 未加载
plancien大约 13 年前
Good news. This will very be useful in my current projets, I like the direction taken with the "legacy config".
评论 #3914636 未加载
atjoslin大约 13 年前
So what's the advantage of requireJS versus browserify? I like browserify because I'm used to the node syntax
评论 #3915525 未加载
评论 #3914714 未加载
评论 #3915548 未加载
评论 #3914580 未加载