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?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because there is a path here that doesnt impose problems for .js (people could userland "use module" or parse guess) and
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats and
The solution doesnt leave tech debt like package json. Doesnt have scaling problems if 3rd mode appears. Is web compatible. And
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
"main" -> "module" doesn't leave tech debt more than .js and .mjs. What do you mean?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
That's key. "In defense of JS" was extremely future friendly. Literally "main" -> "module." Was dismissed too quickly imo :(
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats and
iirc the other bits were there to support the transition period when projects would have both CJS and ESM modules co-existing.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdamRackis @bradleymeck and
Indeed. And imo less important than the long view post-transition. A lot of stuff works for transition.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @AdamRackis and
We disagree, but I need to go to bed.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
We'll talk in person soon enough :)
-
-
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
Goodnight. maybe you'll come up with something in your sleep xD
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.