proposal-import-assertions VS proposal-iterator-helpers

SO, you're using webpack to support CSS imports here, BUT, did you know that you can do this in vanilla JS without webpack using something called import assertions:

This could be implemented as an import assertion[1]:

import foo from 'http://example.com/foo' assert { sha256sum: '...' }

This feature would even be useful in the web platform in general. Along with an assertion for importing plain text files (not just JSON files).

[1]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-import-assertions

Worth noting that Import Assertions were downgraded to stage 2 from stage 3. The proposal page may continue to say "stage 3" until it can be updated.

Import Assertions: Proposal for syntax to import ES modules with assertions

Also, I'm not sure how that'd work with import assertions. That'd add another round of questions.

Hi, there is a way to import json file like:

If you want the real thing, you're looking for import assertions.

But it's still only a proposal, currently at stage 3 (which means it's almost finalised, pending any critical feedback or refinements, before it gets implemented). You can view the import assertions proposal on GitHub.

I wouldn't use import assertions in any browser since they are still a stage 3 proposal so any browser which implements them is doing before it is standardized and shouldn't be relied upon for anything that matters.

There's an issue for that to be added as aprt of import assertions https://github.com/tc39/proposal-import-assertions/issues/11...

Global iterator type is coming: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

But a method named `groupBy` on iterators traditionally means a different thing: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-array-grouping/issues/51#is...

Global iterable type it's too late for, since there's many extant iterables in the language and on the web which don't have it in their prototype chain and can't reasonably be changed.

Very much agreed. The amount of mileage we get from using Spread (literally the ...) alone has been amazing. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... Iteration helpers is shipping soon, that'll be a huge help (async iteration helpers will be delayed for a while). https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers .

In the olden days, I feel like the codebases I worked on needed to use .apply() multiple times a week, to figure out some creative way of invoking functions. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... That's all gone now; I'd take even odds that 50% of my team knows .call and .apply.

Chrome 117 is shipping Object.groupBy() and that's gonna be a huge help in eliminating a lot of the last places we end up using lodash. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Once this https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers reaches browsers, I'm prob gonna be exclusively using Maps.

No, probably not. But with iterator helpers, you can do

> focus more on improving the terrible JS web API

That's W3C’s job, not ECMA’s.

> Where are all the containers?

?

> Sorted sets/maps?

Sets and Maps are sorted (by insertion order)

> Why can't I even map an iterator?

It's coming, but someone will likely be exhausted by that addition. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

Upcoming: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

Not Generators, but Iterators have a Stage 3 proposal with helpers like these.

I guess you are not the only one dealing with this. That’s why there is this proposal https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers So hopefully it will get easier soon. But in most cases you can simply wrap it in Array.from or you can also clone with the spread operator.

Let's assume Number.range(), iterator helpers and some isPrime() function. From that we could easily create the following: