Wow, what a nightmare. I swear they keep changing their resolution alg & how they treat ESM & `.mjs` files 😠

Heh. I like `.esm.js` ending and use it in a lot of projects. What do you think?

Thanks for fast feedback!

Had that initially – making a (lame attempt) statement for `.mjs` support.

Thanks for raising the issue 🙇

I would wait til mjs will become stable. Ideally we should all move to https://github.com/standard-things/esm

It was stable – webpack changed their behavior/treatment. IIRC it was masked in CRA uproar, but CRA changed their behavior only because webpack did.

Ideally we wouldn't need `esm` anywhere. For me, it's a last resort. I mostly use it for unit testing in large codebases.

Please, let me know when it will be published

@dmtrKovalenko It already is :) version 1.0.3

Agreed we don't need `esm` since node supports ESM quite well. But the file should be `.mjs`. Otherwise, it can't use `export default` when referred directly from the node. I think https://github.com/developit/htm is a good example of the module supporting ESM. According to https://medium.com/@giltayar/native-es-modules-in-nodejs-status-and-future-directions-part-i-ee5ea3001f71 `.mjs` is the only way to use ESM, and .js reserved for CJS modules, which `dist/clsx.m.js` is not.

@alekseykulikov `.mjs` doesn't work. Webpack is broken with it in many cases. [esm](https://github.com/standard-things/esm) is a better option. It supports `module` field just fine.

@lukeed esm allows to not transpile commonjs to esm in pure module bundler like rollup.

@alekseykulikov clsx had the same setup as htm has. Try to tell everybody it's their problem. https://github.com/dmtrKovalenko/material-ui-pickers/issues/894

I'd say mjs is not ready for use.

@TrySound you point the issue with webpack, that should be addressed by `clsx`. Version `1.0.3` breaks my case. I don't use webpack, and don't want to run node with `-r esm`. `.mjs` works in node and browser without any transpilation. Parcel supports `.mjs`. I'd say, webpack should follow the node regarding `.mjs` resolution, because the extension is introduced because of node.

Could you point why webpack decided to change the resolution algorithm from node?

Webpack needs this config to make `.mjs` work:

```js rules: [{ test: /\.m?jsx?$/, type: 'javascript/auto', }] ```

This tells webpack to treat it like everything else.

I'm not sure why webpack has done this. It's frustrating tbh. I would much rather use `.mjs` but the reality is that 90% of developers won't have webpack configured correctly, especially with tools like CRA refusing to include the above config.

@alekseykulikov But you have to add experimental-modules flag. Is it shorter? And you have to use ugly mjs extension. It's made mostly for dual mode which fails with webpack. That's why I would wait until it become stable.

Just wrapped it up into a plugin: [`webpack-modules`](https://github.com/lukeed/webpack-modules). Importing it will fix `.mjs` usage in webpack.