Verbose/Complete Local Requirements

[caffeinewriter]

I'm not sure if this should fall under the scope of the style guide, but should requirements be verbose?

E.g.

var sample = require('./routes');
vs
var sample = require('./routes/index.js');

Or

var other = require('./routes/other');
vs
var other = require('./routes/other.js');

I personally always include them, to avoid any accidental conflicts that might be cause by editor autosaves, or something wonky, yet Express uses the former rather than the latter.

This is just one thing I was pondering, since the latter seems like a better practice. However, I'm not sure it actually warrants inclusion in the style guide.

[felixge]

i'm never verbose, but i don't feel strongly about it

[ghost]

You are requireing, not including, which means the one without .js at the end should be used.

[guomo]

What about where the require is included? For clarity I think requires should always be at the top of the file unless there is a really good reason to only include in a closure/scope of some sort like a rare conditional. I see code all the time where people do lazy requires, inline, etc. To me it obfuscates the code making difficulty to understand a file's external dependencies. My suggested rule should be something like this:

Requires At Top

Always put requires at top of file to clearly illustrate a file's dependencies. Besides giving an overview for others at a quick glance of dependencies and possible memory impact, it allows one to determine if they need a package.json file should they choose to use the file elsewhere.

[kentcdodds]

I would be fine merging something like that in @guomo.