Modules: Curly Free

David Herman dherman at
Mon Apr 22 12:46:29 PDT 2013

On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:18 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this is one of these moments where I have no
> idea what the heck you guys are talking about. ;)

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Mr. Spock

> How is a single name
> possibly more difficult to learn or remember than any additional piece
> of syntax, however simple that may be?

We can't create a single, universal name. We can't enforce a naming convention by waggling our eyebrows. We can, by contrast, enforce a universal syntax by specifying it in ES6.

>> I am constantly, repeatedly met with impassioned requests [*] for anonymous export support by JS developers of multiple communities, e.g., NPM and AMD users alike. Do we wish to just ignore them? Do we favor minor convenience of engine implementors over the readability and clarity of every client of large numbers of idiomatic JavaScript modules?
> I am aware that there are a lot of requests from some communities. If
> they think this is an important feature to have -- in the context of
> ES6 modules! -- then we should invite them here to make their case.

I believe I have been stating their case (along with others like Quildreen). Your response has not been that my arguments are *invalid*, but that they are not important enough to warrant an in-language solution. That's not a categorical difference but a difference of degree. We don't vote on es-discuss and I don't think it should take a bunch of "+1" replies for you to believe me that JS users really care about this.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list