One unusual but interesting metric: try to find blog posts explaining module m from 'mymodule'; vs posts explaining import. At least my attempts failed.
Basically authors who thought ES6 modules are worth explaining did not think 'module' was worth explaining. jjb On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Brian Di Palma <off...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Calvin Metcalf > <calvin.metc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > isn't the foot gun the difference between single and multiple exports, > i.e. > > I thought it was imports that were being misused. People were writing > > module m from 'mymodule'; > > m(); > > So they treated `module` just like `import`. I'm not sure I see the > logic in doing that. > Did they not wonder why there were two ways to accomplish the exact same > thing? > As I said, I didn't find the reasoning compelling. > > > to import underscore you'd use > > > > module _ from 'underscore' > > > > because it is multiple methods on an object but for jquery you'd have to > use > > > > import $ from 'jquery' > > > > because the root object is a function instead of an object > > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> 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? > > > > I have no strong opinions either way. I don't feel it's any of those > things. > > > > The argument that was given was that people were confused by it and > > were using it like an `import` statement. > > I said to Eric via Twitter that if people were building incorrect > > compilers and modules then they will eventually learn the error of > > their assumptions. > > > > To me the argument didn't seem that strong, the native implementations > > will be correct and people will correct their broken code. > > > > I'm not supporting the removal. I simply don't think it's a catastrophe. > > > >> > >> Kevin > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > es-discuss@mozilla.org > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
