Oh jfc they opted not to try to match the direction you all were headed?!
-
-
Replying to @AdamRackis @awbjs
Node was matching the CommonJS spec which while not a TC39 effort had member involvement.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradleymeck @AdamRackis
Yes, in 2009 we were debating dynamic vs static module interface definition. Static prevailed.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
The intuition
@littlecalculist and@samth had that static modules would be a major enabler turned out to be true by the time we were done.1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
And partly took as long as it did because of need to engage and reconcile with Node use cases as best we could.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @littlecalculist @awbjs and
And because node genuinely came up with new ideas that made the ergonomics better using the dynamic tools they had at the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wycats @littlecalculist and
People conflated the dynamic tools with the programming model, but default export is a genuinely good idea we wanted to adopt.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @wycats @littlecalculist and
Love default exports - crazy that the TypeScript folks dislike it.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdamRackis @wycats and
export default of an object is not always amenable to static analysis/linking of the default object's properties.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @awbjs @AdamRackis and
The best use of default export is as a conventional name for the main named export.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But also TS is pretty good at nested structural static analysis ;)
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.