Personally I have felt this way for a long time as well. I think `.esm` is somewhat confusing since most js developers don't really think about it as EcmaScript. I would think you could just as easily do `.jsm` but this also suggests that files of this alternate should be served with a different mime type such as `text/javascript-module` or something along those lines.
- Matthew Robb On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM, John Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > A couple of months ago I tried out the suggestion by Yehuda Katz to use > import syntax with special module specifiers to mean parse-as-script, do > evaluate but do not produce a module. The implementation worked well and > now I want to put a version of this idea into Traceur. > > As soon as I started I ran it issues with the name. Obviously "legacy:" is > ambiguous. "script:" looks like a URL, which I suppose was intended, but > then we get into URLs in URLs. Furthermore, the URL scheme is very > cumbersome with a filesystem, you have to have some side-table or algorithm > to match URLs to directories or filenames. > > I implemented postfix ",script", but that sure looks like an extension. > Which is exactly what the semantics are: a file with a different datatype > needing different processing. So it seems to me that the most honest naming > would be some thing like ".ess". > > I would just implement that solution but I proposed a similar idea a while > back to Traceur team I got a lot of pushback along the lines of "JS is one > language". Since then several Traceur users have asked for support to a > non ".js" extension for loading modules, to be able to separate existing JS > code in .js files from new module code in files marked with a different > extension. Within Traceur's (mostly es6) code we have resorted to implicit > marking-by-directory ("All code in src/node is script, not module") or with > the wonderful extension of ".module.js" to mean "all the other files are > script, but this one is module". So it's JS-is-one-language with two > incompatible, unmentionable dialects ;-). > > Finally, naming modules as .js and ES6 Scripts as .ess has the weird > result that ES5 scripts (in .js files) would be processed as ES6 modules. > That seems dumb. So naming the new things, modules, with a new extension > makes more sense. ".esm" seems like a obvious choice. > > I know this may not seem to be the most exalted of topics for > standardization but the current choice of post-pending '.js' has real > consequences for developers. Please consider this issue. > > jjb > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yehuda Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You could imagine a loader plugin that enabled: >> >> import "legacy:foo"; >> >> Which would evaluate the module in a script context. >> >> Yehuda Katz >> (ph) 718.877.1325 >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
