I seem to be one of the few people who prefer .mjs over separate meta-data in package.json (esp. for stand-alone scripts).
-
-
Replying to @rauschma
The conversations have been going on for long enough that maybe a solution was reached in order to accomplish it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jumbleofideas @rauschma
Ideas like checking for export or an if then compilation or even https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/issues/57#issuecomment-301165158 … make quite a bit more logical sense in my brain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jumbleofideas @rauschma
So I desperately hope that when all of this settles down and assuming .mjs is the path forward, there are incredibly simple explanations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jumbleofideas @rauschma
If there are not then I worry about if it is the correct design vs the one that was accomplished after years of hard work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jumbleofideas @rauschma
There is also the thing of being "backwards compatible". A meta question is does .mjs satisfy the idea of being backwards compatible w/ .js?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
.mjs not being compatible with .js is the whole reason we need .mjs.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
JavaScript, HTML, CSS, HTTP, performance, security, Bash, Unicode, i18n, macOS.