@substack I was under the impression that you encouraged single exports from modules, not a "grab bag" of exports in a single module.
-
-
Replying to @wycats3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @rhodesjason
@rhodesjason@substack import foo from "bar" (default export) import { readFile } from "fs" (small number of named exports)3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @rhodesjason
@rhodesjason I see the current state of ES6 modules as doubling down on@substack's philosophy of small modules with few exports.3 replies 6 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @rhodesjason
@rhodesjason@substack require() requires blocking fetched and doesn't work with cyclic modules with single exports.3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
@wycats@rhodesjason@substack does `import foo from "foo"` work with cyclic modules with single default exports?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@kidkarolis @rhodesjason @substack yep :D
-
-
Replying to @wycats
@wycats@rhodesjason@substack but what's the difference? They look so similar.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.