What&#39;s the difference between using Require.JS amd simply creating a `&lt;script&gt;` element in the DOM?

My understanding of Require.JS is that it offers the ability to load dependencies, but can this not simply be done by creating a `&lt;script&gt;` element that loads the necessary external JS file?

For example, lets assume I have the function `doStuff()`, which requires the function `needMe()`. `doStuff()` is in the external file `do_stuff.js`, while `needMe()` is in the external file `need_me.js`.

**Doing this the Require.JS way:**


    define([&#39;need_me&#39;],function(){
        function doStuff(){
            //do some stuff
            needMe();
            //do some more stuff
        }
    });

**Doing this by simply creating a script element:**

    function doStuff(){
        var scriptElement  = document.createElement(&#39;script&#39;);
        scriptElement.src = &#39;need_me.js&#39;;
        scriptElement.type = &#39;text/javascript&#39;;
        document.getElementsByTagName(&#39;head&#39;)[0].appendChild(scriptElement);
    
        //do some stuff
        needMe();
        //do some more stuff
    }

Both of these work. However, the second version doesn&#39;t require me to load all of the Require.js library. I don&#39;t really see any functional difference...

All Dynamic Script-Loading Solutions on Gang of Coders

Total of 1 Dynamic Script-Loading Solutions

What's the difference between Require.js and simply creating a <script> element in the DOM?