import script --> .esm

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at
Wed Sep 10 11:05:39 PDT 2014

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Matthew Robb <matthewwrobb at>

> 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.
Only in non-strict Script (
sense. Modules ( are

> 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.

Unnecessary when nothing about the future directly changes the extant works
of the past.


> 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> 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
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list