import script --> .esm

Matthew Robb matthewwrobb at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 08:44:58 PDT 2014


Personally I have felt this way for a long time as well. I think `.esm` is
somewhat confusing since most js developers don't really think about it as
EcmaScript. I would think you could just as easily do `.jsm` but this also
suggests that files of this alternate should be served with a different
mime type such as `text/javascript-module` or something along those lines.


- Matthew Robb

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com>
wrote:

> A couple of months ago I tried out the suggestion by Yehuda Katz to use
> import syntax with special module specifiers to mean parse-as-script, do
> evaluate but do not produce a module.  The implementation worked well and
> now I want to put a version of this idea into Traceur.
>
> As soon as I started I ran it issues with the name. Obviously "legacy:" is
> ambiguous. "script:" looks like a URL, which I suppose was intended, but
> then we get into URLs in URLs.  Furthermore, the URL scheme is very
> cumbersome with a filesystem, you have to have some side-table or algorithm
> to match URLs to directories or filenames.
>
> I implemented postfix ",script", but that sure looks like an extension.
> Which is exactly what the semantics are: a file with a different datatype
> needing different processing. So it seems to me that the most honest naming
> would be some thing like ".ess".
>
> I would just implement that solution but I proposed a similar idea a while
> back to Traceur team I got a lot of pushback along the lines of "JS is one
> language".  Since then several Traceur users have asked for support to a
> non ".js" extension for loading modules, to be able to separate existing JS
> code in .js files from new module code in files marked with a different
> extension. Within Traceur's (mostly es6) code we have resorted to implicit
> marking-by-directory ("All code in src/node is script, not module") or with
> the wonderful extension of ".module.js" to mean "all the other files are
> script, but this one is module".  So it's JS-is-one-language with two
> incompatible, unmentionable dialects ;-).
>
> Finally, naming modules as .js and ES6 Scripts as .ess has the weird
> result that ES5 scripts (in .js files) would be processed as ES6 modules.
> That seems dumb. So naming the new things, modules, with a new extension
> makes more sense.  ".esm" seems like a obvious choice.
>
> I know this may not seem to be the most exalted of topics for
> standardization but the current choice of post-pending '.js' has real
> consequences for developers. Please consider this issue.
>
> jjb
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You could imagine a loader plugin that enabled:
>>
>> import "legacy:foo";
>>
>> Which would evaluate the module in a script context.
>>
>> Yehuda Katz
>> (ph) 718.877.1325
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140910/cf5cecea/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list