Modules: Curly Free
rossberg at google.com
Tue Apr 23 05:34:36 PDT 2013
On 22 April 2013 17:03, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>> There are substantial differences between legacy modules and what will
>> be in ES6. People will have to adapt, whatever we do. Drawing the
>> "people running away screaming" card is unhelpful rhetoric as long as
>> no valid technical argument is involved.
> What would a valid technical argument look like?
> We're talking about usability and convention vs. syntax here. This argument
> is mostly about developer ergonomics. No proofs.
Concrete evidence about usability improvements counts fine as a
technical argument. But so far, the only concrete evidence I've seen
was Kevin demonstrating that anonymous export is _not_ all that
relevant given ES6 import syntax. ;)
>> The more convincing argument would be interop with those legacy
>> modules. But the magic for that will be in custom loaders, and AFAICS,
>> the problems (and solutions) will likely be the same in either
> Yes, custom loaders can interop but as you say, people will have to do
> something if they want to rewrite to ES6 modules (and Node people may do
> this soon because they don't have downrev browsers to contend with).
> When all those (majority share NPM modules) authors rewrite, what should
> they have to say? "it", really?
You assume that everybody will just want to transplant their
NPM-specific modularity conventions to ES6 unchanged. I don't know if
that is true. In any case, I don't expect that "default" will make
them any happier.
More information about the es-discuss