Rejecting package.json + "use modules" for standalone files isn't on technical grounds. But that's where we're at.
-
-
And .mjs will likely drift out of sync with .js in the lesser maintained tools, which are widely in use.
-
Unclear on this, .js will stay CJS forever in Node ecosystem.
-
I mean tools like pygments will likely get PRs to update .js but forget .mjs and vice versa. Less maintained tools will forget to replicate
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Same amount of time as the "use module" PR right?
-
No, it's about sending PR to support a new extension, not convert them to ES modules
-
Tools already support the .js extension, prism.js will still highlight the file correctly without any configuration for example
-
There is eco-system cost and developer cost. I'd say with mjs they are both quite small. Not hearing strong arguments against IMO
-
The cost is small per incident but widespread. And we're imposing it. Why?
-
Because there is a path here that doesnt impose problems for .js (people could userland "use module" or parse guess) and
-
The solution doesnt leave tech debt like package json. Doesnt have scaling problems if 3rd mode appears. Is web compatible. And
-
Is clear about what a file is if it is standalone ( like in a gist ). Doesnt cause future forward problems like guessing. And
- 21 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not sure if that reply was sarcastic
Thanks. 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.