import.meta and TC39 process as a whole

[Jordan Harband]

It can't be made syntax, because `var System = {};` is valid code, and we
can't break the web. (seriously)

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <dmitrii at dmitriid.com>
wrote:

> Make “System” syntax, and there you go.
>
> Instead we have multiple ad-hoc random additions to random keywords just
> because someone needs something and since there are rarely any long-term
> design decisions anymore, we’re stuck with new.target, function.sent,
> import.meta (add your own)
>
> Seriously. How is new.target is “syntax that has context information”, but
> System.whatever cannot be provided with context information because it’s
> API?
>
>
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:26 Jordan Harband <Jordan Harband
> <Jordan+Harband+%3Cljharb at gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
>
>> > There’s nothing stopping you from providing context to System.load. Or
>> Loader.import, or…
>>
>> Those are APIs. It is, in fact, impossible to provide context with API,
>> since it's just normal functions - it must be with syntax.
>>
>> Additionally, please don't use sexual language, especially in a
>> derogatory manner - that's against TC39's code of conduct, and I'm quite
>> sure it won't be tolerated on this list.
>>
>> Criticism that's purely insult, and doesn't actually explain the cons of
>> something, is also not productive or useful.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Gil Tayar <gil at tayar.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Myself, and tens of programmers I know, use ES6 modules (and their
>>> precursors, CommonJS modules) for years now and can't even believe there
>>> was a time when they didn't exist, given that they have totally transformed
>>> (in a good way) the way we work. And that is also the vibe I am getting
>>> from the community (twitter, blog posts, meetups, etc). So when you say
>>> that modules are "redundant and unnecessary on the server-side.  and
>>> [...]continue to fail to solve an relevant pain-point for everyday
>>> programmers on the frontend-side now", I believe you are not talking about
>>> myself or about the community I surround myself with.
>>>
>>> - Gil Tayar
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I’m curious what the concerns were. You mentioned disliking the
>>>> syntax, but I’m guessing there’s more to it than that?
>>>>
>>>> the concern is that es modules are starting to look like a solution in
>>>> search of a problem.  its redundant and unnecessary on the server-side.
>>>> and it continues to fail to solve an relevant pain-point for everyday
>>>> programmers on the frontend-side now, or in the foreseeable future, while
>>>> creating new ones.
>>>>
>>>> > I’ve been experimenting with ES Modules over HTTP 2 for a few months.
>>>> I used rollup to create my dep graph without actually bundling, then served
>>>> requested modules as entry points with a server push for their deps. I
>>>> imagine that it won’t be long brolefore generic tooling for this sort of
>>>> approach emerges (my own solution is pretty hacky, just wanted to see how
>>>> it might work).
>>>>
>>>> for most projects, dep-graph and tree-shaking have marginal benefits in
>>>> frontend programming, given their complexity.  for all that extra work and
>>>> boilerplate, the result is typically not anymore smaller, more efficient,
>>>> or more maintainable than a pre-es6 rollup file.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170804/b93f3dab/attachment.html>