Tell us about the disadvantages of modular review…

CommonJS (Node.js):

Synchronous: Modules are loaded synchronously, which can block execution in browser environments (although this is less critical in Node.js).
Global scope: require and module create a global scope for each module.
Static analysis: Less convenient for static analysis compared to ES Modules due to dynamic require.

AMD (Asynchronous Module Definition):

Syntax: Has a more verbose and functional syntax compared to CommonJS and ES Modules.
Dependencies: Declaring dependencies requires wrapping code in a function.

// AMD
define(['dep1', 'dep2'], function(dep1, dep2) {
  // module code
});

ES Modules (ESM):

Support in older browsers: Requires transpilation for support in older browsers.
Dynamic import: Dynamic import (import()) is asynchronous, which may require handling promises.
Path resolution: Path resolution for modules can be less intuitive compared to CommonJS in Node.js.

// Dynamic import in ES Modules
import('/modules/my-module.js')
  .then(module => {
    // using the module
  });

Time: The review process can take significant time, slowing down feature delivery.
Subjectivity: Feedback can be subjective and based on personal preferences of the reviewer.
Disagreements: Disagreements may arise between the author and reviewer, requiring time to resolve.
Blind spots: The reviewer may miss errors due to fatigue or lack of familiarity with the context.
Large volumes: Reviewing large pull requests can be inefficient.
Flow disruption: Interrupts the developer's workflow awaiting review.
"Knowledge gaps": If the reviewer lacks sufficient knowledge in a certain area, errors may be missed.

Tell us about the disadvantages of modular review systems and modularity systems used in JavaScript and Node.js.