That's a very good set of criteria, Kevin; I think it helps frame the discussion.
I think the argument is that, based on experience with the transpilers, it is a footgun, with related to people not knowing when to use which. This has been exacerbated by transpilers not correctly distinguishing `import x from "y"` and `module x from "y"`, and the complete lack of stable usable documentation for the spec. In my opinion, people have not had enough experience with a documented, stable, spec, or with non-buggy transpilers, so trying to argue that it is a footgun in the current environment should not hold much weight. There are also arguments that it is not useful, but I think those arguments are specious for the reasons I've already been over earlier. ________________________________ From: es-discuss <es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org> on behalf of Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:50 To: Brian Di Palma Cc: es-discuss list Subject: Re: Re: Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax? I was more wondering if there was anything preventing a module import statement from being added later, if it was found to be a requirement. I can't see any reason why it couldn't, that would also allow time for bikeshedding the syntax. It could be added later, but to turn the question around: why should it be dropped? It has been part of the design for a very long time, it's currently used by many people working in the ES6 space, and it meets a semantic need. If you want to drop a feature this late in the game, then you need to show that it's one of the following: 1. Buggy 2. A footgun 3. Not useful 4. Future-hostile I don't see that it meets any of those requirements, do you? Kevin
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
