Echo JS 0.11.0

May I suggest not doing that? I mean, developers need a little stability. Semver is ok and all, but releasing 7 versions in two hours (incluing a minor one) makes me think it's a rushed release.

Instead, take a little more time, publish a more polished version when you're quite done. Bugs might still slip out, but it's no big deal to release a patch version shortly after.
*One* patch, though, not 6 *and* a minor upgrade.

V5.0.0 was released 2 hours ago and now it's already at v5.1.3?!

That was expected, sadly. It's not an easy task.

In the meanwhile, Node community might opt to use another extension to tell CommonJS and ES2015 modules apart. I really hope it won't happen.

Again, don't forget to add tests to your packages.

That's the problem of not having tests: you should have noticed that in Firefox vendor-prefixed style properties begin with "Moz", not "moz".

Other suggestions:
- one could pass the perfectly valid property "font-smoothing", the function would have tried searching for "webkitFont-smoothing"... and failed, because it's "webkitFontSmoothing". So, camelCase the *whole* property, or make the documentation clearer that they should use "fontSmoothing" instead;
- it doesn't check for vendor-prefixed *values*, like "-ms-grid" for display. Unfortunately checking them isn't as easy, but that would be one of the perks of such a package. As it is, it's quite trivial and similar to many others (e.g.: https://www.npmjs.com/package/prefix-property).

Let me get this straight, I should use an Angular directive to style my layout?!

This seems like an over-engineered CodePen snippet than a real package.
Moreover, it has nothing to do with JavaScrpt, just HTML and CSS.
Finally, let us decide if it's awesome or not (personally I think it's pretty bland).

> No, it's not that simple if you want to copy certain files from A to B and C, other files from A to D etc

Well, yes, it's *that* simple. If I have multiple destinations for the same file, I just have to .pipe again to another destination, that's it.
If I have to move other files to other destinations, I just have to do a new gulp.src and so on. On the plus side, I have the syntax of glob at disposal, and directories get created if they don't exist yet.

Are you even arguing that JavaScript doesn't have enough flexibility for that?

> I really don't see why I should be spawning servers or shell scripts etc from within gulp when it works much better just running them directly.

Strange, I'm sure I just perfectly explained why. Maybe I wasn't clear?
And no, they don't work "much better". At best they work as good.

The only times I rely on just npm scripts is for simple projects(?) that sprout and die in a day.

Welp, it looks like spamming is becoming more and more a problem.

I remember when I saw a similar solution on Stack Overflow a while ago. It was frowned upon and for a good reason, since all expressions and branches were evaluated anyway.

But if there's a Babel plugin that transpiles those pseudo-components, that's another story and no harm is being done. Just two considerations:
- it won't work for TypeScript, not until TS will have a decent plugin system to work with (which is  a *very* complex thing to do in this case, as the strenght of TypeScript relies in its monolithic understanding of the syntax extension it provides);
- they're actually, as I said, *pseudo*-components, which means they look like components but they're just syntactic sugar. This could be jarring for newbies, but also in the long term (with othe similar extensions) I think it would spoil the cleanness of JSX.

Unfortunately, every day that passes we're seeing the limits of JSX. For more complex compositions, it becomes more and more awkward to use (some say the ternary operator should be banned from being used in all languages altogether - there's even the "no-ternary" option for ESLint).