This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Announcement blog post #291
Announcement blog post #291
Changes from 8 commits
e1e7563
6dee5cd
f57ac38
f9bda3b
e6398df
6963b96
1116d7d
4be23c8
10e4d21
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, this is much better - I'd still prefer to indicate that this was always part of the plan (just was never planned to be the default, as it still is not).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This language was the result of a lot of back and forth between various people, so I'd rather not open it up again for debate if you don't mind? Could this be acceptable to you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure why "how many people that weren't me" you talked to should mean that I don't get to retain my opinion here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking at the previous implementation’s user-facing docs and design doc, the previous plan for supporting ESM in
.js
files was via a loader as shown in the example here.How about we change “Node.js needs to provide a way to use
import
andexport
syntax in.js
files” to “Node.js needs to provide a way to useimport
andexport
syntax in.js
files without requiring a loader.” Would that be acceptable?cc @weswigham @robpalme
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Guy and myself had plenty of talks about different ways to declare formats prior to the wg forming, if you need me to dig up gists etc. I can, but the talks did occur both in EP and after the initial implementation. I am rather busy but is it really necessary to bicker about the timelines so much?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That suggestion which I strongly recommend based on the cases made in my previous outdated one would look more like this:
Preview
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, because nobody insisted we would never do that. With or without any of this feedback, we would always have provided some way to have ESM in .js - predating the WG as well. Thus, the links aren’t relevant, and would further the misconception that this is a newly intended feature.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ljharb can you clarify what the intent was:
package.json
to make it possible tonode main.js
to be ESM: Yes/Loader/Nonode --flag main.js
to be ESM: Yes/Loader/No.js
files as ESM: Yes/Loader/No.js
files as ESM & CJS: Yes/Loader/NoCan you reply on each one to help me get a more complete picture please.
Because from the end user's side (which I was at roughly 12 months ago) things looked a certain way, and regardless of what the intent was, it is important to recognize that no matter how hard we all try, the other perspective is always very hard fully appreciate — and naturally mine was one of a the wide spectrum of perspectives, but not an outlier
As such, it is important for us to be as objective and thorough as possible when talking to the audience.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@SMotaal
It is totally valid that some user perspectives may have been solely informed from the implementation; it's also valid that user perspectives do not get to dictate what the intention was.
In general, being objective also means not validating "internet mob outrage made change happen" so as to ensure that's not seen as an effective means to effect change in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for clarifying