central issue for "default extensions"

[ljharb]

This issue encompasses anything that deals with "what the default extensions are/should be".

• #19 points out that .json is not included in the defaults.
• #137 points out that require.extensions is not used as the defaults
• https://github.com/substack/tape/issues/395 is related, but can be addressed with changes in tape, unrelated to whatever resolve does.
• (related but addressed: #150, #127, #90, #134)

There's some PRs out that are hoping to change the defaults:

• #138 dynamically reads require.extensions on every call
• #145 replaces the default of .js with a hardcoded list of the default require.extensions value

I'm opening this so I can close the other issues, and so any further discussion can happen here.

Please try to read all of the previous discussions before commenting.

[snuggs]

@ljharb well done! I'm subscribed and have my eyes peeled. Seems like as I predicted last year there will be more eyeballs looking in the require.extensions direction.

This is a great synopsis but even myself remember you had made a couple suggestions. I wonder what they are currently (especially with the new .mjs extension add we've been working on with IETF. This way I can see where I can help and take some concerns off your plate.

Thoughts?

[ljharb]

As it relates to .mjs, resolve will absolutely add it to the default extension list the instant node ships it unflagged - but not before (that will also be when it's present in require.extensions in node).

[snuggs]

@ljharb sounds like a plan! Any ref we can use to stick in the description / comment to watchdog?

Seems like you know better than me. I've merely been judging off PTSD of the community and in the classrooms. :-|

FWIW I'm totally against .mjs and believe it creates some unnecessary social fractures within the ecosystem but that's just my opinion not the community at large's.

[ljharb]

A file extension is strictly necessary, since Module and Script have distinct (and ambiguous) parsing goals, and a file extension is the proper and sole way to disambiguate textual parsing goals - so this result was inevitable once the choice of two parse goals was made in TC39 back in 2013 or so.

[snuggs]

@ljharb I knew this already. Not arguing file extensions. Arguing the community using the extension to mock the (dead) king of pop. Like I said...as an African American this is some bullshit. But I digress. Because the community always preaches diversity...as long as someone is making money off diversity at a conference or on a blog post touting "inclusivity". Apologize if you don't see why I would have an issue with this.

https://medium.com/dailyjs/es6-modules-node-js-and-the-michael-jackson-solution-828dc244b8b https://github.com/tc39/agendas/issues/322

[ljharb]

I don't refer to mjs as anything related to "michael jackson", nor do i think it's mocking in any way - if anything, it's a reference to how people immediately think of him when they see "MJ" because he's so prolific - so I think you're looking a bit too hard for a reason to be upset.

[snuggs]

@ljharb did anyone ask MJ about this? I'm not "looking for upset". We definitely have better things to do with our day. You may but I don't get paid for this. However, you are free to have your opinion. Others in the community who look like me feel the same way. Perhaps we are ALL over exaggerating. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ You may be right. I'll let them know your thoughts. 👍 I never ask anyone to change their mind. Only to have empathy without immediate dismissal.

[ljharb]

He’s a public figure; he wouldn’t have the right nor the ability to stop people talking about him in a non-libelous way.

[snuggs]

@ljharb there are laws set up against usage of name and likeliness of celebrities here in America. We can do it. Still doesn't make it right. And also a very slippery slope. Like i said, empathy without dismissal. However we are getting a tad off topic. I shall leave you be sir. Just here to help you.

[ljharb]

An individual’s name isn’t culture, and referencing it (solely because of it sharing first letters in common) is not appropriation, cultural or otherwise.

[snuggs]

@ljharb your opinion. And you are free to have this. I mentioned this to you already. But opinions aren't always facts and this conversation has been going on for a while now outside of this comment thread.

As long as you call it what it is "Module JavaScript" we see eye to eye. I think we both can (and should) agree on this. And that's definitely on topic sir. If that isn't our focus, we are introducing ulterior motives.

[ljharb]

If you keep bringing up your complaint, here or anywhere, you make it on topic. And no, it’s not just opinion - merely referencing an individual’s name is not cultural appropriation, objectively, especially when no aspects of the individual are being referenced, literally or metaphorically - and when you claim it does, you weak the case against appropriation for us all.