Switch to ESM breaks 3rd party libraries about long.js HOT 8 CLOSED

There is an UMD fallback now. Let me know if there are any issues :)

from long.js.

That's why it was a major version bump.

Because it has breaking behavior.

from long.js.

I can relate to the frustration surrounding ESM and am open to hear this argument out, though I have to admit that so far I cannot quite follow the reasoning in the OP.

from long.js.

i agree its exactly how semver is supposed to work - major version bump for breaking change

for browsers, esm is definitely the way to go - no doubt
(also for nodejs typescript projects as tsc will do resolving)

however, i dont see a benefit of esm for off-the-shelf nodejs user
(yes, amd/umd are old, but need a working alternative, not just deal-with-it)

how to consume esm in nodejs?

• standard import require that package is marked as type=module which is not always the case
• dynamic imports are horrible at best and at worst they completely break type defs and intellicode
• support for nodejs below 14 is what? and how many users are still on nodejs 12?
  i have 1k users, not 1m and i still get those questions often

perhaps if nodejs adopted import syntax as standard so we can get away from require completely, i'd be completely for it. but nodejs is what it is - and we're likely looking at distant future for this

what i do for my library is package both esm and cjs versions (and iife, but thats another story)

• in browser import * from ... resolves to esm version
• in nodejs, const x = require('..') resolves to cjs version

also, rules are slightly different when library has small number of users vs +1m like this one has
how many people run npm update --latest? i know i do. and every time i run into problems because of that, i fix it. but if only esm is packaged, there is no solution without modifying 3rd party libraries which is not an option

from long.js.

One challenge I am seeing btw. is where the CommonJS module just exports a single class, here Long. What one basically wants for backwards-compatibility is to retain

const Long = require("long");

with an upgrade path of

import Long from "long";

which isn't exactly compatible, also when it comes to typings. What's the typical attack angle there?

For instance, for the former, typings are export = Long while for the latter it's export default Long.

from long.js.

yes, its a challenge, but:

• having both cjs and esm at least gives user options and having just esm is bad for nodejs users
  e.g. i could handle difference in import signature with packager preprocessing. not ideal, but workable.
• old signature for backward compatibility can be achieved by having a separate js file that serves as re-export and is used as entry point when compiling for cjs target only

from long.js.

I might me overlooking something, but it seems that if the package is ESM first, then having a CJS re-export is off the table due to the lack of top-level await. Or is there a way?

For reference, here is what I have so far.

from long.js.

Thanks! I agree the Node.js 12 support (EOL May 2022) is the compelling reason to add this; that's how I cam across this.

from long.js.