ESM is as similar to <script> as CJS is. You want to distinguish ESM/CJS, not ESM/script
-
-
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck
Apps using TS, Babel etc have been using .js for modules not for years. So far no major push in those ecosystems to change.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Correct but they remain non compliant with the standard in ways that cant be supported
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradleymeck
My point is that the only motivation for .mjs is to distinguish from CJS in Node. Good for people to understand that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Or for OS, or for devs, or people wanting to ship poly packages... we have talked about this before.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck
But it's to distinguish CJS from ESM *in node*. .js *already today* means "script or module" and as you said can't be changed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Node never said .js is anything except CJS, which is what all tools output for Node
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck
Right. This is about Node. Maybe we want .njs for Node .js.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Why? .mjs works on web just fine and can be "Modular JavaScript". Some on TC39 even like a new extension regardless
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats
People doing purely web can stay .js or use .mjs
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"modular JS" is confusing for long-time nodesters. "I thought I was already writing a module"
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.