Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?
johnjbarton at google.com
Thu Jun 12 16:42:08 PDT 2014
One unusual but interesting metric: try to find blog posts explaining
module m from 'mymodule';
vs posts explaining import. At least my attempts failed.
Basically authors who thought ES6 modules are worth explaining did not
think 'module' was worth explaining.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Brian Di Palma <offler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Calvin Metcalf
> <calvin.metcalf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > isn't the foot gun the difference between single and multiple exports,
> I thought it was imports that were being misused. People were writing
> module m from 'mymodule';
> So they treated `module` just like `import`. I'm not sure I see the
> logic in doing that.
> Did they not wonder why there were two ways to accomplish the exact same
> As I said, I didn't find the reasoning compelling.
> > to import underscore you'd use
> > module _ from 'underscore'
> > because it is multiple methods on an object but for jquery you'd have to
> > 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>
> >>> 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
> >> 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
> > 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
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss