\4 neither side sees the other as operating in good faith. And neither side has absolute consensus, hence votes
-
-
Replying to @bradleymeck @ebryn
there shouldn't be "sides", but the CTC's membership makes that inevitable.
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
fwiw "TC39" has no opinion about .mjs.
@littlecalculist,@caridy and I care as node community members.1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
specifically, node community members who are early adopters of standard modules.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
correction: early adopters of syntax transpiled to CJS. Not an implementation.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @brianleroux @bradleymeck and
compilers are an implementation, but that point isn't very interesting.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
papering over the reason there's two bad implementation options is interesting
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brianleroux @wycats and
I guess Node as an implementation target isn't a concern for tc39 just browsers?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
so the transpile proved Node is good at CJS not implementation of esmodules, eh
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
transpile to CJS *is* an implementation of esmodules
-
-
Replying to @wycats @brianleroux and
need more concrete efforts to place spec constraints on transpiler generated code. \1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats and
also since they compile to different files it makes things a very different experience
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.