Skip to main content

21 February 2022

Tweets

  • philgyford’s avatar

    @joshbarrnz Yeah, that would be ideal. But it’s not a big enough project in any sense to do all of that unfortunately.

  • philgyford’s avatar

    @nickdunn Thanks. Just using <script> tags seemed too simple and I wondered if there was something extra magic about require.js that I was missing. But this seems a popular solution!

  • philgyford’s avatar

    @dracos @jwheare But surely if it was that simple no one would have invented complex and impenetrable build processes! It would almost be like there was no point to them 🤭

  • philgyford’s avatar

    @weargoggles I can get it up and running as it is, tweaking a few paths. But all the code and libraries are at least 8 years old so ultimately I'd like to update, improve and fix things. At which point - should I figure out require.js or start with something else?

  • philgyford’s avatar

    @joshbarrnz Oh, my aching sides! Tests? Documentation? Comments?! I can but dream.

  • philgyford’s avatar

    @jwheare A man after my own heart.

  • philgyford’s avatar

    The answer might be "stick with Require.js" but I've got this far having never used it and like to keep things as simple as possible. As little build process as possible. Any thoughts, knowing as little as you do about the project?

  • philgyford’s avatar

    Hey, Front End Developeurs… if you inherited a project, not updated for 8 years, which uses Require.js to load its period collection of Backbone, Underscore, jQuery UI, OpenSeaDragon, Raphael, etc, what would you do to make it more modern and (eventually) easily updatable?

  • philgyford’s avatar

    I’m surprised the front pages of the Mail, Telegraph, etc aren’t just photos of Corporal Jones and the headline DON’T PANIC! DON’T PANIC!