ES6 modules (sorry...)

C. Scott Ananian ecmascript at
Mon Jun 16 10:47:21 PDT 2014

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:41 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at> wrote:
> That is, IMHO mutable bindings and modules with cyclic dependencies
> are members of "the bad parts" of JavaScript.  Sure, sometimes there's
> a valid reason to use them.  But for most developers they will be
> happier sticking with "the good parts" and just thinking of modules as
> objects with immutable properties.

(And, just to be clear: I'm not saying that mutable bindings etc don't
belong in the spec.  They have valid use cases, and for some users
this functionality will be very useful.  Handling of cyclic
dependencies is arguably one of the improvements the spec makes over
the status quo.  I'm glad the module spec authors have thought hard
about the issue and come up with reasonable solutions.  But these
features should be recognized as *corner cases* which don't merit
gratuitous deviations from standard syntactic forms in the common

More information about the es-discuss mailing list