This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Announcement blog post #291
Announcement blog post #291
Changes from 1 commit
e1e7563
6dee5cd
f57ac38
f9bda3b
e6398df
6963b96
1116d7d
4be23c8
10e4d21
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems a bit disingenuous, since that wasn't prevented before - it just was not, and still is not, the default.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is this something you can "now" do? This was something that was always planned; whether it happened to be shipped prior to the WG forming or not.
I do not want any implication that having an ESM
.js
file is suddenly an option because of this working group; we have merely preserved (and perhaps implemented) that option.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The article is describing the new implementation as compared to the previous implementation. It’s not describing the new implementation’s plan as compared to the possibly not fully implemented plan for the previous implementation. I don’t think most people will know (or care) what the previous plan was, just what’s new in this version of the software versus the previous version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given the "we heard you" rhetoric at the beginning of the paragraph, this is absolutely implying that it wasn't part of the plan from day one, which it was. If you're talking about implementation differences and capabilities, then talking about "responding to feedback", especially flippantly implying that those of us involved prior to the WG a) weren't listening, or b) weren't planning on enabling this anyways, doesn't belong here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If supporting ESM in
.js
was ever the plan, shipping without any support for it certainly sent a message to the community that that wasn’t the final plan. I was an interested observer when the first--experimental-modules
came out, probably a lot more interested than most, and I had no idea that ESM in.js
was ever on Node’s roadmap.Regardless, plans are never mentioned here. This text is just saying that we hear the request from the community loud and clear, and we’re responding to it. That’s not an indictment of anyone involved in the process so far. If anything, it shows that we’re good developers who are working hard to build the best product for our users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm still not OK with the wording in this paragraph. I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer, but please stop marking it as resolved; it is not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In terms of tone, I think it has much the same issue as the "we didn't do this to annoy you" line did. In isolation it might seem conciliatory, but mentioning it at all is only likely to incense anyone who feels these results are only a half-measure. It doesn't sound good to many of the people it's meant to ease the minds of.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All we need is a simple statement that modules can use the JS extension.
That will be enough. It's super clear.
We should avoid referencing individuals that have taken particular positions in the past, because that frames it as a conflict between different sides, whereas it's more of a collaboration.