import.meta and TC39 process as a whole

Fri Aug 4 12:45:11 UTC 2017

Sorry, it’s just the manner in which Javascript is being actively demolished has really irked me. Especially the speed with which these decisions are carried out. Suggestions like “you should really do some light reading before engaging in arguments” don’t help either.

These are decisions we as developers have to live with for years to come. It’s very easy to add features to a language. It’s almost impossible to remove them. Hence the (uncalled for) curtness.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 14:31 James M Snell

<
mailto:James M Snell <jasnell at gmail.com>
> wrote:

a, pre, code, a:link, body { word-wrap: break-word !important; }

Dmitrii,

Quick aside: the rude manner in which you are communicating is interfering with your goal of convincing anyone. Perhaps if you tried not being so rude, people here would be more willing to listen to what you're saying.

- James

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:09 AM Dmitrii Dimandt <
mailto:dmitrii at dmitriid.com
> wrote:

Let’s continue with the trend of light reading. Let’s see the multitude of things that are in JS, and no one bats an eye:

— start quote — 

Note that 

implements

, 

let

, 

private

, 

public

, 

interface

, 

package

, 

protected

, 

static

, and 

yield

 are disallowed in strict mode only.

You may have noticed I included 

eval

 and 

arguments

 in the list. These are not strictly reserved words, but they sure 

http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-12.2.1
 — they’re disallowed in strict mode too.

Also, the (unlisted) 

NaN

, 

Infinity

, and 

undefined

 properties of the global object are immutable or read-only properties in ES5. So even though 

var NaN = 42;

 in the global scope wouldn’t throw an error, it wouldn’t actually do anything. To avoid confusion, I’d suggest avoiding the use of these identifiers altogether, even though they’re not strictly reserved words.

— end quote — 

Oh, hello. What do we have here? Non-reserved words like they are reserved, and JS treating them in a special way.

So. The *only* reason *not* to introduce a proper global introspection API is?

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 10:03
mailto:dmitrii at dmitriid.com
<
mailto:dmitrii at dmitriid.com
> wrote:

I’d recommend you assume your opponent has done some light reading. And I’d suggest you yourself read the links you post (that is, practice what you preach).

Multiple reserved keywords have been both added to the language and removed from the language. Because *the language evolves*.

However, you (and TC39 in general) keep insisting that short-sightedness and ad-hoc solutions is the only way forward for JavaScript.

You don’t like System, you think it cannot be used? Oh, introduce an `introspect` keyword. Introduce a `system` keyword. Heck, nothing stopped you from introducing a language-level built-in in the form of Symbol, what’s stopping you now?

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:55 Jordan Harband

<
mailto:Jordan+Harband+%3Cljharb at gmail.com%3E
> wrote:

Because it's been reserved syntax since JavaScript's inception, and System hasn't.

I'd recommend some light reading before attempting to continue arguing: 
https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/reserved-keywords

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt

<
mailto:dmitrii at dmitriid.com
>

wrote:

But you can’t `var x = import`, for example. I guess you can’t `var import = {}`  either.

Hmmm… I wonder why…

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:50 Jordan Harband

<
mailto:Jordan+Harband+%3Cljharb at gmail.com%3E
> wrote:

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

<
mailto: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

<
mailto: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
mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Gil Tayar

<
mailto: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 <
mailto: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
mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________

es-discuss mailing list
mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________

es-discuss mailing list
mailto: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/20170804/50d4859a/attachment-0001.html>