Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Domenic Denicola domenic at domenicdenicola.com
Thu Jun 12 13:10:18 PDT 2014

That's a very good set of criteria, Kevin; I think it helps frame the discussion.

I think the argument is that, based on experience with the transpilers, it is a footgun, with related to people not knowing when to use which. This has been exacerbated by transpilers not correctly distinguishing `import x from "y"` and `module x from "y"`, and the complete lack of stable usable documentation for the spec. In my opinion, people have not had enough experience with a documented, stable, spec, or with non-buggy transpilers, so trying to argue that it is a footgun in the current environment should not hold much weight.

There are also arguments that it is not useful, but I think those arguments are specious for the reasons I've already been over earlier.

From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org> on behalf of Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:50
To: Brian Di Palma
Cc: es-discuss list
Subject: Re: Re: Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

I was more wondering if there was anything preventing a module import
statement from being added later, if it was found to be a requirement.
I can't see any reason why it couldn't, that would also allow time for
bikeshedding the syntax.

It could be added later, but to turn the question around:  why should it be dropped?  It has been part of the design for a very long time, it's currently used by many people working in the ES6 space, and it meets a semantic need.

If you want to drop a feature this late in the game, then you need to show that it's one of the following:

1. Buggy
2. A footgun
3. Not useful
4. Future-hostile

I don't see that it meets any of those requirements, do you?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/ae353165/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list