Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

John Barton johnjbarton at google.com
Mon Jun 9 09:49:55 PDT 2014

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>  but ES6 is a class-based language: based on our experience the majority
>> of exports going forward will be classes.
> Hi John, that sounds interesting. What more can you tell us about that
> experience?

Traceur is >30kloc of es6: https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler. It
has 774 exports, roughly split three ways with slightly more class and var
than function.  Many of the var exports are constants. So I was incorrect
on 'majority', but it feels like a majority because the class structure
creates a deep graph while the other two tend to be shallow. Plus the
classes and objects have properties as their focus which broadens the
impact of the import. (We have 9 uses of export default; about 5 uses of
module..from, but this could be a style issue).

> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/695a1fdb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list