Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Calvin Metcalf calvin.metcalf at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 14:07:50 PDT 2014

isn't the foot gun the difference between single and multiple exports, i.e.
to import underscore you'd use

    module _ from 'underscore'

because it is multiple methods on an object but for jquery you'd have to use

import $ from 'jquery'

because the root object is a function instead of an object
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
> 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?

I have no strong opinions either way. I don't feel it's any of those things.

The argument that was given was that people were confused by it and
were using it like an `import` statement.
I said to Eric via Twitter that if people were building incorrect
compilers and modules then they will eventually learn the error of
their assumptions.

To me the argument didn't seem that strong, the native implementations
will be correct and people will correct their broken code.

I'm not supporting the removal. I simply don't think it's a catastrophe.

> Kevin
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/ec9a6c93/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list