On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > From: es-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf of C. Scott > Ananian <[email protected]> >> Using destructuring syntax for imports would be a *good thing*. It builds >> on our existing understanding of JS constructs, instead of adding more >> gratuitously different things to learn. > This would be a very *bad thing*, as long as the current model---where > exports are something wildly different from properties of an object, but > instead are cross-file `with`-esque read-only-but-mutable bindings---was > maintained. It's extremely important that these bindings look and are > manipulated as differently as possible from normal declarations and > destructuring of object properties.
I understand why you feel that way, but I still disagree. Even if the bindings are technically mutable, except for during startup in modules with cyclic dependencies (which are thankfully very rare), most programmers will not observe this behavior. IMO we should optimize for the common case: treat the module import as a destructuring binding. *Later*, when the JS developer is more advanced and is interested in learning about the corner cases, you can get into the weeds with mutable bindings etc. But don't force the developer to learn things that we'd rather no one use in the first place. That is, IMHO mutable bindings and modules with cyclic dependencies are members of "the bad parts" of JavaScript. Sure, sometimes there's a valid reason to use them. But for most developers they will be happier sticking with "the good parts" and just thinking of modules as objects with immutable properties. Don't force people to learn about the bad parts just to get work done. --scott _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
