I'll try to separate out the different issues you're raising here, and respond to each individually.
1. What if I want to have my module be a function, the way that $ in jQuery is both a function and a namespace for the rest of the functionality?
This is an important use case, and so we're going to support it in ES6 modules. You'll be able to say:
module $ at "http://jquery.com/jquery.min.js";
$(...)
$.ajax(...)
2. Modules will requiring using names without the prefix.
This isn't true. As you can see in the above example, you can just use $ directly, even though it's a module. You can also say:
import ajax from $;
but you don't have to.
3. We should just standardize the node module system.
Of course, there are many different module systems being used in JS code right now, and we could just pick one. Unfortunately, we couldn't just pick the node module system, since it's fundamentally synchronous, which is great on the server side but not in the browser.
However, we feel that we can bring real advantages to JS programmers by extending the language -- we can simplify using modules, we can make some patterns direct that currently have to be written using callbacks, we can better support encapsulation, and we can allow engines to use knowledge about modules for optimization.
3. Static analysis is doable even without a static module system.
The static analysis you describe, while useful, isn't going to tell an engine statically where it can go to lookup references to an export from a module. That means it's not useful for many of the optimizations that we want to enable. Additionally, your analysis isn't sound -- it can miss uses of `require` that are generated dynamically, for example. Again, that means that engines can't use it for optimization.
Finally, if you have comments about ES development, I strongly encourage you to make them on es-discuss, rather than on HN, where they are more likely to have an impact on the development of the language.
I'm strong user of Node.js style modules (also for client side) and I see modules as proposed for Harmony as big step forward. It's basically same concept but with dedicated syntax (well put syntax) and some extra powerful features.
Thanks for this. I'm glad that using a single export function will at least be possible. I'm still pessimistic about the amount of syntax being introduced here.
In particular, I still really dislike the special import "local renaming" syntax since it seems so unnecessary compared to just having an import keyword that returns an object and letting the programmer extract and manipulate the relevant entries. You would still get the static analysis benefits of having static imports without all the awkward complexity of the current proposal. Wouldn't it just be the same thing to Object.freeze() the export object but without any syntax magic necessary?
Plus, overloading `module` to do loading AND defining with the `module Bar at "uri"` form seems really wrong. Why can't it JUST do defining and just let import do all the loading?
First, if you want to just use objects-as-prefixes, the way require(...) works in node today, that's easy to do:
module m at "blah.com";
... references to m go here ...
We also want to support other use cases, like binding the exports to names available in your local scope. We understand that not everyone likes that style, but I don't think the language should mandate a particular side in that fight.
Second, the `module m at "URL"` form above is a definition of `m`. It's just that you're allowed to refer to that binding as an object too. Would you rather have:
1. `module` is about defining the modules that you're using in your program, some of which might be remote resources. `import` is about bringing names into scope.
2. Using `module` this way lets you, the client, decide on names for modules, which means we don't have to rely on module authors to come up with and use naming conventions (net.substack.airport, anyone?).
This feeds back into 1, where we use bindings to reference modules, even remote ones.
Also, if a module is never referenced or imported, then the resources shouldn't need to be pulled down at all. So partly it depends on the way you look at things.
1. What if I want to have my module be a function, the way that $ in jQuery is both a function and a namespace for the rest of the functionality?
This is an important use case, and so we're going to support it in ES6 modules. You'll be able to say:
2. Modules will requiring using names without the prefix.This isn't true. As you can see in the above example, you can just use $ directly, even though it's a module. You can also say:
but you don't have to.3. We should just standardize the node module system.
Of course, there are many different module systems being used in JS code right now, and we could just pick one. Unfortunately, we couldn't just pick the node module system, since it's fundamentally synchronous, which is great on the server side but not in the browser.
However, we feel that we can bring real advantages to JS programmers by extending the language -- we can simplify using modules, we can make some patterns direct that currently have to be written using callbacks, we can better support encapsulation, and we can allow engines to use knowledge about modules for optimization.
3. Static analysis is doable even without a static module system.
The static analysis you describe, while useful, isn't going to tell an engine statically where it can go to lookup references to an export from a module. That means it's not useful for many of the optimizations that we want to enable. Additionally, your analysis isn't sound -- it can miss uses of `require` that are generated dynamically, for example. Again, that means that engines can't use it for optimization.
Finally, if you have comments about ES development, I strongly encourage you to make them on es-discuss, rather than on HN, where they are more likely to have an impact on the development of the language.