We write universal code now-a-days :D Yeah, we can definitely rename, and configure tools. But if it's not really necessary, why do that
-
-
With .mjs you could reach a world without any .js for package you have this odd residual dangerous key.
-
Seems like at that point we declare bankruptcy and rename to .js :-p
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's key. "In defense of JS" was extremely future friendly. Literally "main" -> "module." Was dismissed too quickly imo :(
-
Add the other bits
-
iirc the other bits were there to support the transition period when projects would have both CJS and ESM modules co-existing.
-
Kind of, modules.root is an odd duck due to scope creep and keeping file globs forever is odd
-
Plus main was never a required field, future still deals with standalone files,etc
-
Right. The one notable change is making an entry point field mandatory. It's good practice anyway tho.
-
Except when you dont have package.json or your tool doesnt deal with package.json yet. Have to add support.
-
If your tool doesn't support package.json it won't have known about CJS.
- 2 more replies
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.