Even with some larger libraries, you can do things like this:
```js
// small modules
import xmlParse from 'xml/parse';
import xmlCreate from 'xml/create';
import xmlSandwich from 'xml/sandwich';
import jsonParse from 'json/parse';
import jsonCreate from 'json/create';
import jsonBacon from
Small modules are great, especially for creators. I’m onboard with
small-modules being the default and recommended way of doing things.
But.. I think history has shown that there is a use-case and a place in the
world for larger composed modules. Take a look at lodash or jQuery for example.
From
This is usually part of the reason why small modules are recommended,
rather than large object bags of things (including many named exports).
Have you considered putting each thing you want to import as the default
export of a separate file?
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Norbert de Langen <
I think there’s a preference reason for this but also optimization reasons.
For humans it becomes crystal clear exactly what parts are dependent on. I
personally like this.
When importing the entire module the module code needs to be run to figure out
what parts are not needed. Eliminating the
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Norbert de Langen
wrote:
> It would be nice to have this option:
>
> ```
> import { parse } as xmlLib from 'xml-lib';
> import { parse } as jsonLib from 'json-lib';
> import { parse } as htmlLib from 'html-lib';
>
> // usage
>
# importing selected chucks of a module into an object
Modules are always imported into the root scope of the imported file. But in
some cases it can be desirable to load modules into a namespace-object.
Especially when importing a large number of parts/chunks from a module creating
a
6 matches
Mail list logo