named export
vs
default export

export const MyClass

export default MyClass

<head>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

 

</head>

 

 

 

l'Histoire derrière le mythe

define('myModule', ['jquery'], function($) {
	// $ is the export of the jquery module.
	$('body').text('hello world');
});
// and use it
require(['myModule'], function(myModule) {});

AMD

CommonJS

function project() {
  return 'myProjet';
}
module.exports.project = project;
module.exports = project;

const { project } = require('project');

 

ES6 Module

export function project() {
  return 'myProjet';
}

export default project

const { project } = import('project');
const toto = import('project');

 

Mais que fait Babel ?

export function project() {
  return 'myProjet';
}

export default project

 

"use strict";

Object.defineProperty(exports, "__esModule", {
  value: true
});

exports.project = project;

function project() {
  return "myProjet";
}

exports.default = project;

 

Le cas Node.js
Pourquoi c'est compliqué ?

CommonJS vs ES6 Module

Dynamic 

&

Sync

Static 

&

Async

Pendant ce temps sur Airbnb

Cameron Spear

What is the benefit of prefer-default-export?

  • Refactoring
  • Tree-Shaking

Jordan Harband

you'd basically never have to change a default export to a named export

  • contextless
  • split files
    readibility/maintenability/treeshaking

Pendant ce temps sur Airbnb

Cory House

Agreed except for treeshaking. All else equal, a single export fights against tree shaking by importing all code when you may only need some.

Jordan Harband

No, it doesn't. 3 files each with 1 export, versus 1 file with 3 exports, is identically treeshakeable - except that the former doesn't need tree-shaking to be as small as possible.

Using named exports is why tree-shaking is even necessary in the first place.

Pendant ce temps sur Airbnb

Jordan Harband

The ideal module/file only default-exports one thing, ideally a pure function. There are always exceptions and justifications for deviating from this, of course - but that's the default I start from.

Pendant ce temps sur Airbnb

KayakinKoder

let's say we have 500 helper functions related to UI manipulation. What's best for the long term? 500 individual files each exporting one function seems overboard, but maybe not?

Jordan Harband

 if you have 500 helper functions, have 500 individual files. Use directories if they need organization.

Mais que faire ?

Text

// for test purpose
export const LoginEmail = ({ t }) => (
  <Marger top="4" bottom="4">
    <Marger bottom="1">
      <Label htmlFor="email">{ t('login.form.email.label') }</Label>
    </Marger>
    <TextInputField
      id="email"
      placeholder={ t('login.form.email.placeholder') }
      name="login_user[email]"
      validate={ [Validators.required, Validators.validEmail] }
      errorMessages={ {
        required: t('login.form.email.error.missing'),
        invalidEmail: t('login.form.email.error.invalid'),
      } }
    />
  </Marger>
)

// default public API
export default withTranslation(LoginEmail)

Les util/helper/misc

Ramda / date-fns / redux / recompose / history ...

1 FICHIER = 1 HELPER = default export

Bonnes pratiques

  • 1 fichier par helper
  • default export

Bénéfices

  • Pas besoin de tree-shaking
  • Meilleure lisibilité
  • Meilleure API

named export vs default export

By Florent DUVEAU

Made with Slides.com

named export vs default export

  • 772

More from Florent DUVEAU