Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Forrest Norvell othiym23 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 17:45:20 PDT 2014

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

So I think this argues for two actions:
> 1.  Leave the syntax as-is.  The "module from" syntax makes the
> distinction between getting the module instance object, and importing
> bindings from a module very clear.
If the goal is community adoption, I think this is probably the best
option. It’s too late to reopen the discussion of import x from "x"
changing to have syntax that better supports multiple export, and I really
dislike the implications of dropping module from at this point in the

2.  Educate.  Perhaps those of us on the list that really get modules
> should be writing about them as well.
I’d prefer *evangelizing* more than *educating*. I’d like to see more
direct attempts to engage with the proponents of CommonJS and AMD to see
where their comfort level is now. Some of them have prematurely written off
ES6 modules (IMO), but the larger community (particularly around Node /
browserify) just doesn’t understand the feature, and therefore can’t give
meaningful feedback for or against it – or what should change – yet.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/ae453741/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list