Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Axel Rauschmayer]

>> Isn't the problem, though, that default-exporting an object prevents static checking? It feels like an abuse of this feature to me.
> 
> We don't have static checking today, so this is no loss to me.

If I understand ES6 modules correctly, importing a non-exported identifier gives you a load-time error (that’s what I meant with “static checking”). If you default-import an object with exports, you only get run-time errors.

This is more subjective, but what I like about modules is that they lead us away from objects-as-modules. If default exports, used in this manner, become popular, that won’t really happen. We’ll have pseudo-modules, used inside a module system.

> (And ES6 modules give enough benefits over ES5 ones without static checking to still have a chance in the marketplace, e.g. they statically require imports being at top-level and string-only, and automatically introduce `"use strict"` for you.)

I agree. I also love tools such as the es6-module-transpiler, which allow us to move beyond the AMD/CJS schism right now.


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
rauschma.de



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/48460497/attachment.html>