ES6 In Depth is a series on new features being added to the JavaScript programming language in the 6th Edition of the ECMAScript standard, ES6 for short.

When I started on Mozilla’s JavaScript team back in 2007, the joke was that the length of a typical JavaScript program was one line.

This was two years after Google Maps launched. Not long before that, the predominant use of JavaScript had been form validation, and sure enough, your average <input onchange=> handler would be… one line of code.

Things have changed. JavaScript projects have grown to jaw-dropping sizes, and the community has developed tools for working at scale. One of the most basic things you need is a module system, a way to spread your work across multiple files and directories—but still make sure all your bits of code can access one another as needed—but also be able to load all that code efficiently. So naturally, JavaScript has a module system. Several, actually. There are also several package managers, tools for installing all that software and coping with high-level dependencies. You might think ES6, with its new module syntax, is a little late to the party.

Well, today we’ll see whether ES6 adds anything to these existing systems, and whether or not future standards and tools will be able to build on it. But first, let’s just dive in and see what ES6 modules look like.

Module basics

An ES6 module is a file containing JS code. There’s no special module keyword; a module mostly reads just like a script. There are two differences.

ES6 modules are automatically strict-mode code, even if you don’t write "use strict"; in them.

You can use import and export in modules.

Let’s talk about export first. Everything declared inside a module is local to the module, by default. If you want something declared in a module to be public, so that other modules can use it, you must export that feature. There are a few ways to do this. The simplest way is to add the export keyword.

// kittydar.js - Find the locations of all the cats in an image. // (Heather Arthur wrote this library for real) // (but she didn't use modules, because it was 2013) export function detectCats(canvas, options) { var kittydar = new Kittydar(options); return kittydar.detectCats(canvas); } export class Kittydar { ... several methods doing image processing ... } // This helper function isn't exported. function resizeCanvas() { ... } ...

You can export any top-level function , class , var , let , or const .

And that’s really all you need to know to write a module! You don’t have to put everything in an IIFE or a callback. Just go ahead and declare everything you need. Since the code is a module, not a script, all the declarations will be scoped to that module, not globally visible across all scripts and modules. Export the declarations that make up the module’s public API, and you’re done.

Apart from exports, the code in a module is pretty much just normal code. It can use globals like Object and Array . If your module runs in a web browser, it can use document and XMLHttpRequest .

In a separate file, we can import and use the detectCats() function:

// demo.js - Kittydar demo program import {detectCats} from "kittydar.js"; function go() { var canvas = document.getElementById("catpix"); var cats = detectCats(canvas); drawRectangles(canvas, cats); }

To import multiple names from a module, you would write:

import {detectCats, Kittydar} from "kittydar.js";

When you run a module containing an import declaration, the modules it imports are loaded first, then each module body is executed in a depth-first traversal of the dependency graph, avoiding cycles by skipping anything already executed.

And those are the basics of modules. It’s really quite simple. ;-)

Export lists

Rather than tagging each exported feature, you can write out a single list of all the names you want to export, wrapped in curly braces:

export {detectCats, Kittydar}; // no `export` keyword required here function detectCats(canvas, options) { ... } class Kittydar { ... }

An export list doesn’t have to be the first thing in the file; it can appear anywhere in a module file’s top-level scope. You can have multiple export lists, or mix export lists with other export declarations, as long as no name is exported more than once.

Renaming imports and exports

Once in a while, an imported name happens to collide with some other name that you also need to use. So ES6 lets you rename things when you import them:

// suburbia.js // Both these modules export something named `flip`. // To import them both, we must rename at least one. import {flip as flipOmelet} from "eggs.js"; import {flip as flipHouse} from "real-estate.js"; ...

Similarly, you can rename things when you export them. This is handy if you want to export the same value under two different names, which occasionally happens:

// unlicensed_nuclear_accelerator.js - media streaming without drm // (not a real library, but maybe it should be) function v1() { ... } function v2() { ... } export { v1 as streamV1, v2 as streamV2, v2 as streamLatestVersion };

Default exports

The new standard is designed to interoperate with existing CommonJS and AMD modules. So suppose you have a Node project and you’ve done npm install lodash . Your ES6 code can import individual functions from Lodash:

import {each, map} from "lodash"; each([3, 2, 1], x => console.log(x));

But perhaps you’ve gotten used to seeing _.each rather than each and you still want to write things that way. Or maybe you want to use _ as a function, since that’s a useful thing to do in Lodash.

For that, you can use a slightly different syntax: import the module without curly braces.

import _ from "lodash";

This shorthand is equivalent to import {default as _} from "lodash"; . All CommonJS and AMD modules are presented to ES6 as having a default export, which is the same thing that you would get if you asked require() for that module—that is, the exports object.

ES6 modules were designed to let you export multiple things, but for existing CommonJS modules, the default export is all you get. For example, as of this writing, the famous colors package doesn’t have any special ES6 support as far as I can tell. It’s a collection of CommonJS modules, like most packages on npm. But you can import it right into your ES6 code.

// ES6 equivalent of `var colors = require("colors/safe");` import colors from "colors/safe";

If you’d like your own ES6 module to have a default export, that’s easy to do. There’s nothing magic about a default export; it’s just like any other export, except it’s named "default" . You can use the renaming syntax we already talked about:

let myObject = { field1: value1, field2: value2 }; export {myObject as default};

Or better yet, use this shorthand:

export default { field1: value1, field2: value2 };

The keywords export default can be followed by any value: a function, a class, an object literal, you name it.

Module objects

Sorry this is so long. But JavaScript is not alone: for some reason, module systems in all languages tend to have a ton of individually small, boring convenience features. Fortunately, there’s just one thing left. Well, two things.

import * as cows from "cows";

When you import * , what’s imported is a module namespace object . Its properties are the module’s exports. So if the “cows” module exports a function named moo() , then after importing “cows” this way, you can write: cows.moo() .

Aggregating modules

Sometimes the main module of a package is little more than importing all the package’s other modules and exporting them in a unified way. To simplify this kind of code, there’s an all-in-one import-and-export shorthand:

// world-foods.js - good stuff from all over // import "sri-lanka" and re-export some of its exports export {Tea, Cinnamon} from "sri-lanka"; // import "equatorial-guinea" and re-export some of its exports export {Coffee, Cocoa} from "equatorial-guinea"; // import "singapore" and export ALL of its exports export * from "singapore";

Each one of these export-from statements is similar to an import-from statement followed by an export . Unlike a real import, this doesn’t add the re-exported bindings to your scope. So don’t use this shorthand if you plan to write some code in world-foods.js that makes use of Tea . You’ll find that it’s not there.

If any name exported by “singapore” happened to collide with the other exports, that would be an error, so use export * with care.

Whew! We’re done with syntax! On to the interesting parts.

What does import actually do?

Would you believe… nothing?

Oh, you’re not that gullible. Well, would you believe the standard mostly doesn’t say what import does? And that this is a good thing?

ES6 leaves the details of module loading entirely up to the implementation. The rest of module execution is specified in detail.

Roughly speaking, when you tell the JS engine to run a module, it has to behave as though these four steps are happening:

Parsing: The implementation reads the source code of the module and checks for syntax errors. Loading: The implementation loads all imported modules (recursively). This is the part that isn’t standardized yet. Linking: For each newly loaded module, the implementation creates a module scope and fills it with all the bindings declared in that module, including things imported from other modules. This is the part where if you try to import {cake} from "paleo" , but the “paleo” module doesn’t actually export anything named cake , you’ll get an error. And that’s too bad, because you were so close to actually running some JS code. And having cake! Run time: Finally, the implementation runs the statements in the body of each newly-loaded module. By this time, import processing is already finished, so when execution reaches a line of code where there’s an import declaration… nothing happens!

See? I told you the answer was “nothing”. I don’t lie about programming languages.

But now we get to the fun part of this system. There’s a cool trick. Because the system doesn’t specify how loading works, and because you can figure out all the dependencies ahead of time by looking at the import declarations in the source code, an implementation of ES6 is free to do all the work at compile time and bundle all your modules into a single file to ship them over the network! And tools like webpack actually do this.

This is a big deal, because loading scripts over the network takes time, and every time you fetch one, you may find that it contains import declarations that require you to load dozens more. A naive loader would require a lot of network round trips. But with webpack, not only can you use ES6 with modules today, you get all the software engineering benefits with no run-time performance hit.

A detailed specification of module loading in ES6 was originally planned—and built. One reason it isn’t in the final standard is that there wasn’t consensus on how to achieve this bundling feature. I hope someone figures it out, because as we’ll see, module loading really should be standardized. And bundling is too good to give up.

Static vs. dynamic, or: rules and how to break them

For a dynamic language, JavaScript has gotten itself a surprisingly static module system.

All flavors of import and export are allowed only at toplevel in a module. There are no conditional imports or exports, and you can’t use import in function scope.

All exported identifiers must be explicitly exported by name in the source code. You can’t programmatically loop through an array and export a bunch of names in a data-driven way.

Module objects are frozen. There is no way to hack a new feature into a module object, polyfill style.

All of a module’s dependencies must be loaded, parsed, and linked eagerly, before any module code runs. There’s no syntax for an import that can be loaded lazily, on demand.

There is no error recovery for import errors. An app may have hundreds of modules in it, and if anything fails to load or link, nothing runs. You can’t import in a try/catch block. (The upside here is that because the system is so static, webpack can detect those errors for you at compile time.)

There is no hook allowing a module to run some code before its dependencies load. This means that modules have no control over how their dependencies are loaded.

The system is quite nice as long as your needs are static. But you can imagine needing a little hack sometimes, right?

That’s why whatever module-loading system you use will have a programmatic API to go alongside ES6’s static import/export syntax. For example, webpack includes an API that you can use for “code splitting”, loading some bundles of modules lazily on demand. The same API can help you break most of the other rules listed above.

The ES6 module syntax is very static, and that’s good—it’s paying off in the form of powerful compile-time tools. But the static syntax was designed to work alongside a rich dynamic, programmatic loader API.

When can I use ES6 modules?

To use modules today, you’ll need a compiler such as Traceur or Babel. Earlier in this series, Gastón I. Silva showed how to use Babel and Broccoli to compile ES6 code for the web; building on that article, Gastón has a working example with support for ES6 modules. This post by Axel Rauschmayer contains an example using Babel and webpack.

The ES6 module system was designed mainly by Dave Herman and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt, who defended the static parts of the system against all comers (including me) through years of controversy. Jon Coppeard is implementing modules in Firefox. Additional work on a JavaScript Loader Standard is underway. Work to add something like <script type=module> to HTML is expected to follow.

And that’s ES6.

This has been so much fun that I don’t want it to end. Maybe we should do just one more episode. We could talk about odds and ends in the ES6 spec that weren’t big enough to merit their own article. And maybe a little bit about what the future holds. Please join me next week for the stunning conclusion of ES6 In Depth.