I really hope we've still got time. Seems like node core is dragging their feet because everyone knows deep down it's a really bad idea.
-
-
I really hope so. They're touting GitHub adopting .mjs in GitHub pages as some kind of success story.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
fwiw I did see Bradley say that .mjs was "written in stone" - which sucks. But hey, just use
@jdalton's loader and move on!3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @wycats and
That's fine. Let them write it in stone. They're just writing themselves into oblivion. FE community (huge majority of npm) won't use it.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mjackson @AdamRackis and
npm isn't stopping anybody doing anything, and will support whatever the majority end up doing. So far nobody's much of anything.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
npm attempting to influence the outcome by picking a winner seems like a bad idea, if only because we have no idea what we're doing.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
At least npm has its finger on the pulse of the whole module ecosystem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
We certainly do, which is why I can say with confidence "it is not yet clear which way this is going to go".
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
re original topic, given what webpack does, I'm honestly not sure how any native feature could replace it 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @seldo and
ie, how would a "browser" field automatically statically analyze dependencies A,B,C & de-dupe transitive dependencies therein)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It wouldn't. "browser" is basically a transition step to "module" imo.
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.