import script --> .esm

Matthew Robb matthewwrobb at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 10:40:21 PDT 2014


I just think the idea of 1JS has already been compromised and really what
we have is a spec that supports two almost-entirely different sets of
expectations. The maintenance of keeping them of equal priority seems like
it will only get worse over time. The `"use strict"` pragma is already sort
of an opt-in to the new mode. To me the more graceful path forward is the
one where the world as people know it stays the same but then there is an
opt-in path for moving to the supersets of the future. Dong this once after
having considered many of the issues of the old model seems reasonable to
me specially with the amount of buy in people are doing on transpilers and
even buy in on other languages/runtimes such as dart.



- Matthew Robb

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:

> Matthew Robb wrote:
>
>> I don't see why they have to? Traceur should be used as a build time tool
>> that ultimately runs in legacy mode. Only REAL modern ES6 module
>> implementations would run in this other world. Basically .es files today
>> would be transpiled into .js files.
>>
>
> I doubt people will do any such thing. We can have more suffixes (I was
> against .js2 in particular -- that particularly confusing proposal was why
> I unleashed the Nope-topus), but if people can adapt their existing
> practices with AMD/Require/CommonJS modules and use just .js, I bet they
> will.
>
> Tools will have to read metadata, tea-leaves, and etheric winds to keep
> up. Same as ever.
>
> /be
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140910/18f38a2a/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list