Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't sound like you've read my comment at all Well, I did. > I'd genuinely like to hear an elaboration on this. You already alluded to it. NodeJS's take on modules (which are not CommonJS[1]) were never a good idea, and they were never standard, least of all in any sense that matters. Too many people treat the NodeJS project and its associated silliness like it's the be-all and end-all of "JS". It's not. It's…
In terms of early days serverside JS, I was mainly a Flusspferd user (outside of earlier Rhino & lots and lots of awkward XULRunnering), so I do get where you're coming from. Node was absolutely the mainstream enemy in the early days, and for me strongly represented the antithesis of what the ecosystem should become, including CommonJS. But that battle was lost and at this stage Node realising late is so so much bett…
Given how little "getting" there's evidence for in your previous comments and how quickly you resorted to the most convenient strawman at the time (that I'm just some "people who dislike JS railing against it for its own sake"), this is doubtful.
I can't say I get where you're coming from—too difficult to locate the logical throughline in your comment and how it relates to (a) the specific issues raised in the original article, and (b) your original mischaracterization of it.