Ross Kaffenberger 04cbaa1475 Use ES module syntax for application.js.tt and docs ... This change swaps the CommonJS require() syntax in the Webpacker application.js pack template file and in documentation examples with ES module import syntax. Benefits of this change include: Provides continuity with the larger frontend community: Arguably, one of the main draws in adopting Webpacker is its integration with Babel to support ES module syntax. For a fresh Rails install with Webpacker, the application.js file will be the first impression most Rails developers have with webpack and Webpacker. Most of the recent documentation and examples they will find online for using other libraries will be based on ES module syntax. Reduces confusion: Developers commonly add ES imports to their application.js pack, typically by following online examples, which means mixing require() and import statements in a single file. This leads to confusion and unnecessary friction about differences between require() and import. Embraces browser-friendliness: The ES module syntax forward-looking and is meant to be supported in browsers. On the other hand, require() syntax is synchronous by design and not browser-supported as CommonJS originally was adopted in Node.js for server-side JavaScript. That webpack supports require() syntax is merely a convenience. Encourages best practices regarding optimization: webpack can statically analyze ES modules and "tree-shake", i.e., strip out unused exports from the final build (given certain conditions are met, including `sideEffects: false` designation in package.json).		2020-06-16 15:12:12 -04:00
..
assets/javascripts	Use ES module syntax for application.js.tt and docs	2020-06-16 15:12:12 -04:00