[lucideer]

TL;DR:

Breaking backwards compatibility is always painful but there's not one actual criticism of ES Modules as a spec here other than its incompatibility with CommonJS

[addicted]

Let’s flip this.

What are the advantages of ESM that led to selecting that over CJS modules for standardization in the first place?

[Ginden]

Statically analyzable tree. In CJS you have to depend on people not doing strange things to their `module.exports` and you are left with heuristics.

[joepie91_]

This is not actually a meaningful benefit that ESM has in practice, as I've explained in my article.

[lucideer]

> as I've explained in my article

Not convincingly.

Firstly, static imports are markedly different to top-level require due to module scoping: e.g. tree-shaking isn't stable with most "statically-analysed" top-level requires due to potential side-effects.

Secondly, handwaving dynamic imports as the ES Modules equivalent to non-top-level require doesn't pass the smell test. Dynamic imports are a deliberately separate syntax and mechanism to static imports, whereas require isn't differentiated. They are also, notably, async.

[wruza]

Smell tests are irrelevant to analyzers code. Developers are either able to break analyzers by using import() or are unable. They’re still able with ESM, and they’re still able to deliberately not do that with require(literal). Async has nothing to do with that, all it does is wrapping T into Promise<T>. No notable difference for static checks, promises are everywhere in javascript.

[wruza]

Could you please point to “strange things” that people do with “exports” AND how it prevents static analyzers from doing their job? Why they can do it for:

  var x = strange_thing()

but suddenly can not when “x” is renamed to “exports”?

[Ginden]

Eg.

    module.exports = {foo: 3};
    setImmediate(() => module.exports[Math.random() > 0.5 ? 'foo' : 'bar'] = 5);

This is impossible for ES modules, because exports are static and known at parse time.

Few widely used packages do something like:

    enhanceWithAdditionalProperties(module.exports, mixin);

[wruza]

Not the same but similar:

  export var foo = 3
  setImmediate(() => {foo = Math.random()})

Under ESM, exported values are still not known at parse time, and may be changed by the library (but not created nor deleted). And given that exported may be changed, what prevents library makers from doing:

  export default var exports = { }
  enhance(exports, mixin)

and you are left with heuristics again?

I see these subtle differences, but fail to see how they are a solution to the problem of “doing strange things to exports”.

[djrockstar1]

  That might sound irrelevant on the face of it, but it has 
  very real consequences. For example, the following pattern 
  is simply not possible with ESM:

  const someInitializedModule = require("module-name") 
 (someOptions);
  Or how about this one? Also no longer possible:

  const app = express();
  // ...
  app.use("/users", require("./routers/users"));

Configurable modules and lazily loaded imports are both missing from the ES Modules spec.

[wereHamster]

    import someModule from "module-name"
    const someInitializedModule = someModule(someOptions)

A bit longer, but meh…

    const app = express();
    app.use("/users", (await import("./routers/users")).default);

top-level await is a thing now

Actually, the first example could be rewritten as

    const someInitializedModule = (await import("module-name")).default(someOptions);

That «simply not possible» statement is simply not true

[presentation]

Or don’t even bother with the awaited import and instead import it at the top of the file, I fail to see why this is even an issue lol

[bricss]

dynamic imports for that matter, or:

    import { createRequire } from 'module';

    const require = createRequire(import.meta.url);
    const cjsOrJson = require('./somewhat/module/pathway');

[Ginden]

> lazily loaded imports are both missing from the ES Modules spec.

What do you mean?

[crooked-v]

The total inability to properly mock ES modules without experimental Node flags is a big one. It can turn unit testing into a nightmare if even one ESM dependency creeps in.

[Aeolun]

There is one. Which is that you can’t easily do an inline require any more.

The rest of the text can mostly be summarized as https://xkcd.com/927/

[nrabulinski]

I’ve been working with node for roughly 5 years and I’ve never liked the hackieness CJS let people incorporate.

People, especially a few years ago, were trying to get clever with the require calls, were fiddling around with require cache and while with ESM we no longer can “easily” do stuff like dynamic reloads, I genuinely feel it’s for the better.

I strongly agree with privatenumber’s point that import() syntax is the true first class citizen here.

[tehbeard]

Inline require(...), Are we back to bad old days of PHP include '...'; midway through a classes function already?

[bricss]

inline require is most likely a bad design, imo

[nuerow]

> Breaking backwards compatibility is always painful but there's not one actual criticism of ES Modules as a spec here other than its incompatibility with CommonJS

This.

Also, the bulk of the rant is focused on how the author struggles with configuring his pick of JavaScript bundlers and transpilers, and proceeds to come up with excuses to justify not migrating away from CommonJS .

This article was a waste of a perfectly good click.