Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Forrest Norvell othiym23 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 08:24:44 PDT 2014

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of
> Marius Gundersen
> > I'd say we only support named exports, something like this:
> https://gist.github.com/mariusGundersen/88a4c5690e08da0d07f6
> If you do that, the real-world consequences will be even worse. Nobody (to
> a first approximation) will use ES6 modules at all, as they will be
> entirely incompatible with how modules are used today by both AMD and
> CommonJS communities.

This is my primary concern as well. I know from conversations with Node
developers (some of whom are connected to the development of the platform
itself) that many, if not most, of them are dubious about the benefits of
the new module system. I tend to be pessimistic, so I also tend to write
down my intuition somewhat, but based on the conversations I've had within
the Node community, I would be surprised if a statistically meaningful
number of the modules on npm end up being rewritten to use ES6 module
syntax (once it's even available in V8). If you make changes that affect
the usability of either single export or single import of multiple export,
you're in effect making the headwinds that much stiffer. I think Domenic
and Kevin's concerns about messing with a fragile consensus are entirely

My broader concern is that it's very late in the specification process to
be proposing these kinds of changes, and it feels like the proposals on the
table violate the spirit of the design process that's been proposed for ES7
and beyond. I know that ES6 is still governed by the old rules, but if the
goal of the future process is to have the volume of changes to proposed
features converge on zero as the feature moves through the process, that
doesn't seem like it has to be something that blocks on the formal adoption
of a new process.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140610/0fd80cb8/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list