Most web developers I talk to these days love writing JavaScript with all the newest language features—async/await, classes, arrow functions, etc. However, despite the fact that all modern browsers can run ES2015+ code and natively support the features I just mentioned, most developers still transpile their code to ES5 and bundle it with polyfills to accommodate the small percentage of users still on older browsers.

This kinda sucks. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t be shipping unnecessary code.

With new JavaScript and DOM APIs, we can conditionally load polyfills because we can feature detect their support at runtime. But with new JavaScript syntax, this is a lot trickier since any unknown syntax will cause a parse error, and then none of the code will run.

While we don’t currently have a good solution for feature-detecting new syntax, we do have a way to feature-detect basic ES2015 syntax support today.

The solution is <script type="module"> .

Most developers think of <script type="module"> as way to load ES modules (and of course this is true), but <script type="module"> also has a more immediate and practical use-case—loading regular JavaScript files with ES2015+ features and knowing the browser can handle it!

To put that another way, every browser that supports <script type="module"> also supports most of the ES2015+ features you know and love. For example:

Every browser that supports <script type="module"> also supports async/await

also supports Every browser that supports <script type="module"> also supports Classes .

also supports . Every browser that supports <script type="module"> also supports arrow functions .

also supports . Every browser that supports <script type="module"> also supports fetch, and Promises, and Map, and Set, and much more!

The only thing left to do is provide a fallback for browsers that don’t support <script type="module"> . Luckily, if you’re currently generating an ES5 version of your code, you’ve already done that work. All you need now is to generate an ES2015+ version!

The rest of this article explains how to implement this technique and discusses how the ability to ship ES2015+ code will change how we author modules going forward.

Implementation

If you’re already using a module bundler like webpack or rollup to generate your JavaScript today, you should continue to do that.

Next, in addition to your current bundle, you’ll generate a second bundle just like the first one; the only difference is you won’t transpile all the way down to ES5 and you won’t need to include legacy polyfills.

If you’re already using babel-preset-env (which you should be), this second step is very easy. All you have to do is change your list of browsers to only those that support <script type="module"> and Babel will automatically not apply transformations it doesn’t have to.

In other words, it will output ES2015+ code instead of ES5.

For example, if you’re using webpack and your main script entry point is ./path/to/main.mjs , then the config for your current, ES5 version might look like this (note, I’m calling this bundle main.es5.js since it’s ES5):

module .exports = { entry : './path/to/main.mjs' , output : { filename : 'main.es5.js' , path : path.resolve(__dirname, 'public' ), }, module : { rules : [{ test : /\.m?js$/ , use : { loader : 'babel-loader' , options : { presets : [ [ 'env' , { modules : false , useBuiltIns : true , targets : { browsers : [ '> 1%' , 'last 2 versions' , 'Firefox ESR' , ], }, }], ], }, }, }], }, };

To make a modern, ES2015+ version, all you have to do is make second config and set your target environment to only include browsers that support <script type="module"> . It might look like this (note, here I’m using the .mjs extension since it’s a module):

module .exports = { entry : './path/to/main.mjs' , output : { filename : 'main.mjs' , path : path.resolve(__dirname, 'public' ), }, module : { rules : [{ test : /\.m?js$/ , use : { loader : 'babel-loader' , options : { presets : [ [ 'env' , { modules : false , useBuiltIns : true , targets : { browsers : [ 'Chrome >= 60' , 'Safari >= 10.1' , 'iOS >= 10.3' , 'Firefox >= 54' , 'Edge >= 15' , ], }, }], ], }, }, }], }, };

When run, these two configs will output two, production-ready JavaScript files:

main.mjs (the syntax will be ES2015+)

(the syntax will be ES2015+) main.es5.js (the syntax will be ES5)

The next step is to update your HTML to conditionally load the ES2015+ bundle in browsers that support modules. You can do this with a combination of <script type="module"> and <script nomodule> :

< script type = "module" src = "main.mjs" > </ script > < script nomodule src = "main.es5.js" > </ script >

Note: I’ve updated the examples in this article to use the .mjs file extension for any file I load as a module. Since this practice is relatively new, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out a few gotcha you might encounter when using it: Your web server needs to be configured to serve .mjs files with the Content-Type header text/javascript . If your browser is failing to load your .mjs files, that may be why.

files with the header . If your browser is failing to load your files, that may be why. If you’re using Webpack and babel-loader to bundle your JavaScript, you’ve likely copy/pasted some configuration code that only transpiles .js files. Changing the regular expression in your config from /\.js$/ to /\.m?js$/ should fix your issue.

files. Changing the regular expression in your config from to should fix your issue. Older webpack versions don’t create a sourcemap for .mjs files, but since webpack 4.19.1 this has been fixed.

Important considerations

For the most part, this technique “just works”, but there are a few details about how modules are loaded that are important to be aware of before implementing this strategy:

Modules are loaded like <script defer> , which means they aren’t executed until after the document has been parsed. If some of your code needs to run before that, it’s best to split that code out and load it separately. Modules always run code in strict mode, so if for whatever reason any of your code needs to be run outside of strict mode, it’ll have to be loaded separately. Modules treat top-level var and function declarations differently from scripts. For example, in a script var foo = 'bar' and function foo() {…} can be accessed from window.foo , but in a module this is not the case. Make sure you’re not depending on this behavior in your code.

Warning! Safari 10 doesn’t support the nomodule attribute, but you can solve this by inlining a JavaScript snippet in your HTML prior to using any <script nomodule> tags. (Note: this has been fixed in Safari 11).

A working example

I created webpack-esnext-boilerplate so developers could see a real implementation of this technique.

With this boilerplate I intentionally included several advanced webpack features because I wanted to show that this technique is production-ready and works in real-world scenarios. These include well-known bundling best-practices like:

And since I would never recommend something I wouldn’t use myself, I’ve updated this blog to use the technique as well. You can check out the source code if you’d like to see more.

If you’re using a tool other than webpack to generate your production bundles, the process is more or less the same. I chose to demo this using webpack here because it’s currently the most popular bundler, and it’s also the most complex. I figure if the technique can work with webpack, it can work with anything.

Is this really worth the extra effort?

In my opinion, definitely! The savings can be substantial. For example, here’s a comparison of the total file sizes for the two versions of the actual generated code from this blog:

Version Size (minified) Size (minified + gzipped) ES2015+ (main.mjs) 80K 21K ES5 (main.es5.js) 175K 43K

The legacy, ES5 version is more than twice the size (even gzipped) of the ES2015+ version.

Larger files take longer to download, but they also take longer to parse and evaluate. When comparing the two versions from my site, the parse/eval times were also consistently about twice as long for the legacy version (these tests were run on a Moto G4 using webpagetest.org):

Version Parse/eval time (individual runs) Parse/eval time (avg) ES2015+ (main.mjs) 184ms, 164ms, 166ms 172ms ES5 (main.es5.js) 389ms, 351ms, 360ms 367ms

While these absolute file sizes and parse/eval times aren’t particularly long, realize that this is a blog and I don’t load a lot of script. But this isn’t the case for most websites out there. The more script you have, the bigger the gains you’ll see by shipping ES2015+.

If you’re still skeptical, and you think the file size and execution time differences are primarily due to the fact that a lot more polyfills are needed to support legacy environments, you’re not entirely wrong. But, for better or worse, this is an extremely common practice on the web today.

A quick query of the HTTPArchive dataset shows that 85,181 of the top Alexa-ranked sites include babel-polyfill, core-js, or regenerator-runtime in their production bundles. Six months ago that number was 34,588!

The reality is transpiling and including polyfills is quickly becoming the new norm. What’s unfortunate is this means billions of users are getting trillions of bytes sent over the wire unnecessarily to browsers that would have been perfectly capable of running the untranspiled code natively.

Note: a few developers have commented that, when using this technique, some desktop browsers will download both the module and nomodule versions of the script. As a result they prefer not to use it until browsers fix these bugs. I strongly disagree with this. Here’s why: The cost of shipping lots of unneeded JavaScript to low-end mobile browsers can be significant! We (on the Chrome team) have seen numerous occurrences of polyfill bloat adding seconds to the total startup time of websites on low-end mobile devices. On the other hand, a user on desktop IE or Edge having to download something twice is likely to have zero effect on startup time since the incorrectly downloaded bundle isn’t executed and is only downloaded optimistically and off the main thread (by the preload scanner). In addition to performance cost, there’s also a literal monetary cost. Most users affected by the double-download bug are on WiFi with an unlimited data plan. Downloading an extra file doesn’t cost them anything—this is often not the case for mobile web users.

It’s time we start publishing our modules as ES2015

The main gotcha for this technique currently is most module authors don’t publish ES2015+ versions of their source code, they publish transpiled, ES5 versions.

Now that deploying ES2015+ code is possible, it’s time we change this.

I fully understand that this presents a lot of challenges for the immediate future. Most build tools today publish documentation that recommends configurations which assume all modules are ES5. This means if module authors start publishing ES2015+ source code to npm, they’ll probably break some users’ builds and just generally cause confusion.

The problem is most developers that use Babel configure it to not transpile anything in node_modules , but if modules are published with ES2015+ source code, this is a problem. Luckily the fix is easy. You just have to remove the node_modules exclusion from your build config:

rules: [ { test : /\.m?js$/ , exclude: /node_modules/ , use : { loader : 'babel-loader' , options : { presets : [ 'env' ] } } } ]

The downside is that if tools like Babel have to start transpiling dependencies in node_modules in addition to local dependencies, builds will be slower. Fortunately this is a problem that can somewhat be addressed at the tooling level with persistent, local caching.

Regardless of the bumps we’ll likely face on the road to ES2015+ being the new module publishing standard, I think it’s a fight worth having. If we, as module authors, only publish ES5 versions of our code to npm, we force bloated and slower code upon our users.

By publishing ES2015, we give developers a choice, and that ultimately benefits everyone.

Conclusion

While <script type="module"> was intended to be a mechanism for loading ES modules (and their dependencies) in the browser, it doesn’t have to be used just for that purpose.

<script type="module"> will happily load a single JavaScript file, and this gives developers a much-needed means for conditionally loading modern features in browsers that can support it.

This, along with the nomodule attribute, gives us a way to use ES2015+ code in production, and we can finally stop sending so much transpiled code to browsers that don’t need it.

Writing ES2015 code is a win for developers, and deploying ES2015 code is a win for users.

Further reading