Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt samth at cs.indiana.edu
Wed Jun 11 13:49:20 PDT 2014

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org> on behalf of Matthew Robb <matthewwrobb at gmail.com>
>> Transpile aside, I don't want that performance concern. Most of the time I want a real solid reference and the only way to get it as the spec stands is to import something and then cache it locally. Isn't that kind of crazy?
> I don't know what performance concern you're referring to (probably a transpiler-only thing). But yes, I agree that it's crazy that you can't get solid references that you control (instead of aliasing bindings that the model author controls) without such shenanigans. I brought up that point [a long time ago](http://esdiscuss.org/topic/import-and-aliasing-bindings), and was told that we wanted to follow Scheme and ML instead of existing JS module systems. Which goes back to my "frankly confounding" comment from earlier...

The answer you actually got when you asked this from Andreas expresses
it very nicely:

Scheme and ML were only brought up when _you_ asked about other
language's module systems.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list