DEV Community

What the heck are CJS, AMD, UMD, and ESM in Javascript?

Igor Irianto on July 22, 2019

In the beginning, Javascript did not have a way to import/export modules. This is a problem. Imagine writing your app in just one file - it would b...
Collapse
 
ahferroin7 profile image
Austin S. Hemmelgarn

ES6 modules aren't asynchronous, at least not as they are in use right now most places. Put simply, unless you're using dynamic imports (see below), each import statement runs to completion before the next statement starts executing, and the process of fetching (and parsing) the module is part of that. They also don't do selective execution of module code like you seem to imply. import {bar, baz} from './foo.js' loads, parses, and runs all of './foo.js', then binds the exported entities named 'bar', and 'baz' to those names in the local scope, and only then does the next import statement get evaluated. They do, however, cache the results of this execution and do direct binding, so the above line called from separate files will produce multiple references to the single 'bar' and 'baz' entities.

Now, there is a way to make them asynchronous called 'dynamic import'. In essence, you use import as a function in the global scope, which then returns a Promise that resolves to the module you're importing once it's fetched and parsed. However, dynamic import support is somewhat limited right now (IE will never support it, Edge is only going to get it when they finish the switch to Chromium under the hood, and UC Browser, Opera Mini, and a handful of others still don't have it either), so you can't really use them if you want to be truly portable (especially since static imports (the original ES6 import syntax) are only valid at the top level, so you can't conditionally use them if you don't happen to have dynamic import support).

As a result of this, code built around ES6 modules is often slower than equivalent code built on AMD (or a good UMD syntax).

Collapse
 
iggredible profile image
Igor Irianto

Hi Austin, thanks for the reply! I appreciate you taking a lot of time to write this.

  1. According to this link, it says "ECMAScript 6 gives you the best of both worlds: The synchronous syntax of Node.js plus the asynchronous loading of AMD. ", and this article also says that " ESM is asynchronously loaded, while CommonJS is synchronous."

  2. Regarding ESM speed, what I meant to say is that ESM creates static module structure (source, source), allowing bundlers to remove unnecessary code. If we remove unnecessary codes using bundlers like webpack/ rollup, wouldn't this allow the shipping of less codes, and if we ship less code, we get faster load time? (btw, just reread the article, I definitely didn't mention rollup usage. Will revise that).

There is a good chance I am wrong (still learning about JS modules) or interpreted what I read incorrectly (also likely, happened before), but based on what I've read, ESM is async and ESM in overall is faster because it removes unnecessary code. I really appreciate your comment - it forced me to look up more stuff and do more research!

Collapse
 
ahferroin7 profile image
Austin S. Hemmelgarn

Digging a bit further myself, I think I know why I misunderstood the sync/async point. Put concretely based on looking further at the ES6 spec, the Node.js implementation of CJS, and the code for Require.js and Alameda):

  • CJS executes imports as it finds them, blocking until they finish.
  • ESM waits to execute any code in a module until all of it's imports have been loaded and parsed, then does the binding/side-effects stuff in the relative order that they happen.
  • AMD also waits to run module code until it's dependencies are loaded and parsed, but it runs each dependency as it's loaded in the order in which they finish loading, instead of the order they're listed in the file.

So, in a way, we're kind of both right. The loading and parsing for ESM modules is indeed asynchronous, but the execution of the code in them is synchronous and serialized based on the order they are imported, while for AMD, even the execution of the code in the modules is asynchronous and based solely on the order they are loaded.

That actually explains why the web app I recently converted from uisng Alameda to ESM took an almost 80% hit to load times, the dependency tree happened to be such that that async execution provided by AMD modules actually significantly cut down on wait times.

Collapse
 
nyngwang profile image
Ning Wang • Edited

This is a notification to express my (many!) thanks for your superb explanation. This resolves all of my confusions about ES6 modules!

Collapse
 
karataev profile image
Eugene Karataev

Can you please clarify?

When CJS imports, it will give you a copy of the imported object.

Let's say we have three files:

// obj.js
module.exports = {
  a: 42
};

// bar.js
const fooObj = require('./obj');

console.log('obj from bar', fooObj);

// index.js
const obj = require('./obj');

obj.a = 50;
console.log('obj', obj);

require('./bar');
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Console output after run node index.js:

obj { a: 50 }
obj from bar { a: 50 }
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

It's clear that index.js and bar.js share the same object from obj.js.

Collapse
 
mudlabs profile image
Sam

Because obj.js is exporting an object literal. The first time you require obj.js the object is instantiated, and assigned memory allocation. Every time you require it, it's the same object, from memory. If obj.js was exporting a function that returned an abject, well that would be different.

Collapse
 
karataev profile image
Eugene Karataev

If obj.js was exporting a function that returned an abject, well that would be different.

Agree. But in this case the exported function will be the same for all modules (i.e. the function will not be copied for every import).

Thread Thread
 
mudlabs profile image
Sam

Right

Collapse
 
almaember1098 profile image
almaember

Not like you should be changing modules anyways...

Collapse
 
roser137 profile image
roser137

Do CJS imports copies the exported object? I think not. If you create an object in a module and export it using module.exports it is used for every import. Imports from other modules do not create new objects. They uses the same object.

Collapse
 
gpingfeng profile image
Gopal

Hello, may I translate your article into Chinese?I would like to share it with more developers in China. I will give the original author and original source.

Collapse
 
iggredible profile image
Igor Irianto

Sorry for the late reply, definitely!

Collapse
 
salimkafin profile image
kafin

in this part, which you say can run in browser:

<script type="module">
  import {func1} from 'my-lib';

  func1();
</script>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

where do it get my-lib from?

Collapse
 
iggredible profile image
Igor Irianto

You can have local file that exports func1, say a js file 'my-lib.js' .

Then your import becomes :

 import {func1} from './my-lib.js';
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

inside my-lib.js, have something like:

export function func1() {
  return `Hello func1!`;
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
Collapse
 
vadorequest profile image
Vadorequest

Another really good article, older, bug goes much more in-depth.

hacks.mozilla.org/2018/03/es-modul...

Collapse
 
iggredible profile image
Igor Irianto

This is another good article. Good suggestion!

Collapse
 
samwatts98 profile image
Sam Watts

Thanks for this explanation! Very concise, well written, and well compared. :)

Collapse
 
masterinquestion profile image
MasterInQuestion • Edited

    Is writing everything in one file really necessarily nightmarish..?
    Haven't seen enough dependency hell and god-know-how..?
    Much the reason people disfavor GOTO spaghetti.

    Extreme invert. Excess amok.
    Insane decoupling is not applicable: things are by nature coupled, inseparable.
    Elements are each other coupled and constitute a blob of whole, much of unawarely implications.
    .
    Well realizing the underlying implementation is the only way to guarantee effectiveness and efficiency.

Collapse
 
digitalnaut profile image
Cybernaut

Still relevant in 2022 and really cleared things up for me 👏 Thank you!

Collapse
 
fakenickel profile image
FakeNickel

I count myself lucky enough to see the wonderful answer 4 years later here since 2019.

Thanks for the article you shared with us and the discussions indeed sovle my problem.

Collapse
 
artu_hnrq profile image
Arthur Henrique

I didn't know these definitions before this reading...
Thanks for the well wrote sharing, Igor!