import.meta and TC39 process as a whole

Fri Aug 4 16:17:17 UTC 2017

I was going to write a big answer going into details while a `system` “special form” would be beneficial, extensible and future-proof, draw comparisons and parallels to `super()` etc.

Instead I will leave you with this quote and links from node.js enhancement proposals on `module.import` https://github.com/WebReflection/node-eps/blob/master/XXX-module-import.md: 

— start quote —

Why polluting module and not require ?

require function has been historically abused (https://www.npmjs.com/package/require.async) or polluted (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#data-main) in an era where Promise, as well as async and await patterns, weren't even discussed in the JS community.

...

On the other hand, being module where developers define their exports, I don't see any confusion in being module where developers can import their dependencies.

— end quote — 

It’s funny to see how TC39 ended up abusing and polluting `import`.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 16:58 "Caridy Patiño"

<
mailto:
> wrote:

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

> Make “System” syntax, and there you go.

Dmitrii, I like that, let’s continue with that train of thoughts! How do you make System syntax? You can’t consider it an object (it is not an object, it is syntax), which means you can’t pass it around because it holds contextual information (linked to the source text were it was used, similar to our beloved eval), it means you can’t really use other syntax to spread it, because it is not a object, etc, etc, etc. Do you see where I’m going? You quickly ended up with something almost equivalent to import().

We didn’t come up with it in the shower, it took years to understand all the problems, and create consensus, definitely not rushed IMO.

/caridy

On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:31 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

<> 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/20170804/0454f8bf/attachment-0001.html>