Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Axel Rauschmayer]

On the other hand, we’ll have many pseudo-modules, which is also a barrier against making progress later on.


On Jun 9, 2014, at 15:51 , John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com> wrote:

> If the 'module' form is left out, it can be added later. If the 'module' form is left in, it can never be removed.
> jjb
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 
> 

-- 
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/20140609/933c893a/attachment.html>