You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, we generate and provide both an ESM and CommonJS version of our JavaScript bindings, which means that it takes twice as much space as really needed. Yet, we know that CommonJS works in Node, but not in web browsers while ESM is supported by all modern web browsers and Node 13+. So, it ought to be sufficient to just support ESM?
Now, I know that we use the CommonJS version for our tests with jest, but we can get jest to work with ESM by using it with --experimental-vm-modules. ESM seems to be the way forward, so I would just generate and provide an ESM version of our JavaScript bindings.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now, we generate and provide both an ESM and CommonJS version of our JavaScript bindings, which means that it takes twice as much space as really needed. Yet, we know that CommonJS works in Node, but not in web browsers while ESM is supported by all modern web browsers and Node 13+. So, it ought to be sufficient to just support ESM?
Now, I know that we use the CommonJS version for our tests with
jest
, but we can getjest
to work with ESM by using it with--experimental-vm-modules
. ESM seems to be the way forward, so I would just generate and provide an ESM version of our JavaScript bindings.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: