Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Caridy Patino caridy at gmail.com
Mon Jun 9 08:36:51 PDT 2014

My perspective here is that there are not too many modules (in nodejs) that
rely on more than a handful of exports from a particular module, we are
actively working on validating this using esprima in a large set of npm
modules. If this is true, we should be just fine with specific imports, and
for the edge cases, an imperative form should be sufficient.

For now, I will ask you all to try to find a modules that are using too
many exported methods from one of its imported modules, you will be suprise
how hard it is too find those.


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:

> As an aside, it is yet to be seen whether the "default" export thing is
> the best way, or the bad part itself.  We don't have the real world
> experience yet to answer that.
> I’d even argue that they led to the predicament that we are currently in.
> If the default export didn’t look like “the module”, things would, in my
> opinion, be easier to understand:
> ```js
> import _ from "Underscore";
> import { flatten, union } from "Underscore";
> import default someFunction from "single_function_module";
> ```
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/14aea81e/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list