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.
-
-
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 @littlecalculist and
They do? Maybe because it's harder to quick fix?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @littlecalculist and
They say "you can't rename" but they mean "I want all default imports always use the same name" -
@mweststrate hope I'm not misrepresenting1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @wycats @littlecalculist and
import Foo from "./foo" What if, inside foo.js you rename class Foo to class Bar Old imports will still work w/ old name: they no like
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @littlecalculist and
You mean you rename export default class Foo ?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What about export default class {} in foo.js?
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.