I'm still not convinced via our work so far that one cannot parse out the differences.
1: Our position is that systems can either assume module (<script type=module>) or require unambiguous contents.
-
-
"require unambiguous contents" - meaning have Node implement a 99.9% subset of ES Modules? Yes x 1000 if so. Been saying that forever.
-
I think node can support modules without imports or exports or "use module" with a whole package optin
-
There are _so many_ good options that don't require Node-specific baggage.
-
I'm still not 100% convinced this is entirely node specific as I have stated about non-node platforms affected by ESM
-
Though, I generally get told they either don't matter, they are edge cases, or that they should follow some specific proposal just not .mjs
-
I also am very against package.json, love "use module" though if required for ESM
-
To be clear, I am against the loss of random things or odd fields that are permanent debt
-
How does a new file extension not qualify as exactly that?????
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
2: we still think package.json is good for whole package opt-in (avoids confusing mistakes where the last export is commented out,
-
3/3: avoids the noise of "use module" everywhere). But unambiguous seems ok as a tie breaker.
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.