- the goal is to not pollute the global namespace as we do today
- the module/export/load are a part of an opt-in dialect of javascript when you specify "text/es-harmony" as the language.
the goal is to not pollute the global namespace as we do today
What is the other option? The jQuery in "import jQuery.$" has to refer to something. Does he want to create a "module namespace" with special "module objects" not referenceable from normal variable scope? No thanks: that sounds like Java, not JavaScript.
the module/export/load are a part of an opt-in dialect of javascript when you specify "text/es-harmony" as the language
Why does Mozilla need to build dialects into their browser for something which can be done with a simple compiler? Between "create a little module syntax compiler which works in all browsers now" and "wait for all of the borwsers to implement the text/es-harmony dialect", I'd rather see the former.
>> the goal is to not pollute the global namespace
Right, like this, I guess
new function() {
var jQuery = ...
}
I think this document is either omitting the important details or it simply doesn't address the namespacing problem correctly. Remember when Prototype.js had a document.getElementsByClassName? Fun times when that broke.
>> the module/export/load are a part of an opt-in dialect
That doesn't seem very well thought-out. How would one access a module declared in a <script type="text/es-harmony"> from a <script type="text/javascript">? It's a pretty realistic scenario (e.g. say you have a non es-harmony codebase and you want to add a es-harmony library)
>> I think this document is either omitting the important details or it simply doesn't address the namespacing problem correctly. Remember when Prototype.js had a document.getElementsByClassName? Fun times when that broke.
Interfering with other modules' exports is not possible. But modifying the properties of arbitrary objects is just as possible as ever. Modules are all about fixing scope, not about locking down objects.
To put it differently, the document is not a module, it's an object. The module system has nothing to do with it.
>> How would one access a module declared in a <script type="text/es-harmony"> from a <script type="text/javascript">? It's a pretty realistic scenario (e.g. say you have a non es-harmony codebase and you want to add a es-harmony library)
This is accounted for in the design. The global object is not in the scope chain of Harmony code, but it is still available to Harmony code via a standard binding in the standard library, and the Harmony modules are made available to legacy JS as module instance objects in the global object. So communication is available in both directions.
>> Harmony modules are made available to legacy JS as module instance objects in the global object.
Does this mean a module is visible like this?
window.jQuery
window.Prototype
That's kinda what already exists... For that matter, any variation of that (e.g. window.modules.jQuery) can be done with the patterns you mentioned at the beginning of the document.
>> The global object is not in the scope chain of Harmony code
Ah, I see. That's certainly a new feature, but what's a use case for that? I find it hard to justify giving up a few fairly common variable names just for knowing that window.i or whatever is not polluted. It kinda feels like just shifting the name collisions around.
