Modules: Curly Free

Brendan Eich brendan at
Tue Apr 23 21:36:10 PDT 2013

Kevin Smith wrote:
> Or they may choose some other naming convention.  Demonizing naming 
> conventions is just plain silly.

No one demonized naming conventions. The fact is not having to agree on 
a name is one less thing to hassle with, that's all.

> I think Quildreen provides an argument, no so much *for* default 
> exports, but *against* declarative-binding modules.

No, that goes too far.

> I think we should consider the possibility that it will be impossible 
> to make developers "happy" with a module system that is, by its very 
> nature, less flexible than the dynamic one that they currently have.

That's certainly true, but so what? We can't have modules-as-objects 
*and* synchronous require in browsers (Node cheats there). We're doing 
modules to fill gaps in the language that objects and functions can't fill.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list