We Keep Coding

Migrating from Webpack 1.x to 2.x

In Webpack 1.x I used to do the following on regular basis:
require.ensure([ './mod2.js' ], ( require ) => {
setTimeout(() => {
// some later point in time, most likely through any kind of event
var data = require( './mod2.js' ); // actual evaluating the code
},1100);
}, 'myModule2');
With this technique, we were able to transfer a webpack-bundle over the wire, but evaluate the actual contents (the JavaScript code) from that bundle at some later point in time. Also, using require.ensure we could name the bundle, in this case myModule2, so we could see the name / alias when bundling happened executing webpack.
In Webpack 2.x, the new way to go is using System.import. While I love receiving a Promise object now, I have two issues with that style. The equivalent of the above code would look like:
System.import( './mod2.js' ).then( MOD2 => {
// bundle was transferred AND evaluated at this point
});
How can we split the transfer and the evaluation now?
How can we still name the bundle?
The Webpack documentation on Github says the following:
Full dynamic requires now fail by default
A dependency with only an expression (i. e. require(expr)) will now
create an empty context instead of an context of the complete
directory.
Best refactor this code as it won't work with ES6 Modules. If this is
not possible you can use the ContextReplacementPlugin to hint the
compiler to the correct resolving.
I'm not sure if that plays a role in this case. They also talk about code splitting in there, but it's pretty briefly and they don't mention any of the "issues" or how to workaround.

tl;dr: System.resolve and System.register do most of what you want. The rest of this answer is why require.ensure cannot and how System.import calls the others.
I think ES6 modules prevent this for working well, although following it through the relevants specs is tricky, so I may be totally wrong.
That said, let's start with a few references:
the WhatWG module loader
the ES6 specification on modules (§15.2)
the CommonJS module specification
the fantastic 2ality article on ES6 modules
The first reference explains more behavior, although I'm not entirely sure how normatize it is. The latter explains the implementation details on the JS side. Since no platforms implement this yet, I don't have references for how it actually work in real life, and we'll have to rely on the spec.
The require that has been available in webpack 1.x is a mashup of the CommonJS and AMD requires. The CommonJS side of that is described in ref#3, specifically the "Module Context" section. Nowhere does that mention require.ensure, nor does the AMD "specification" (such as it is), so this is purely an invention of webpack. That is, the feature was never real, in the sense of being specified somewhere official and fancy looking.
That said, I think require.ensure conflicts with ES6 modules. Calling System.import should invoke the import method from a Loader object. The relevant section in ref#2 does not lay that out explicitly, but §10.1 does mention attaching a loader to System.
The Loader.prototype.import method is not terribly involved, and step 4 is the only one that interests us:
Return the result of transforming Resolve(loader, name, referrer) with a fulfillment handler that, when called with argument key, runs the following steps:
Let entry be EnsureRegistered(loader, key).
Return the result of transforming LoadModule(entry, "instantiate") with a fulfillment handler that, when called, runs the following steps:
Return EnsureEvaluated(entry).
The flow is resolve-register-load-evaluate, and you want to break between load and evaluate. Note, however, that the load stage calls LoadModule with stage set to "instantiate". That implies and probably requires the module has already been translated via RequestTranslate, which does much of the heavy parsing as it tries to find the module's entry point and so on.
This has already done more work than you want, from the sounds of it. Since the basics of module loading require a known entry point, I don't think there's a way to avoid parsing and partially evaluating the module with the calls exposed from System. You already knew that.
The problem is that System.import can't possibly know -- until after parsing -- whether the module is an ES6 module that must be evaluated or a webpack bundle that could be deferred. The parsing must be done to figure out if we need to parse, leading to a chicken-and-egg problem.
Up to this point, we've been following the path from System.import through the Loader. The import call is dictating what stage of import we're at, assuming you want to go through the full end-to-end loading process. The underlying calls, like Loader.prototype.load, provide fine grained control over those stages.
I'm not sure how you would invoke the first two stages (fetch and translate), but if you were able to translate and register a module, later calls should simply evaluate and return it.
If the spec is accurate, this should be exposed (in supporting implementations) through the System.loader property and would have the methods you need to call. There are large parts of the flow you don't have access to, so I would suggest not doing this and instead setting up your code so nothing significant runs when a module is loaded. If that's not possible, you need to recreate the flow up through registering but stop shy of evaluation.

Node js, split up files without having to pass dependencies around?

This may be just me lacking a 'bigger picture' so to speak, but I'm having trouble understanding why exporting modules is needed to just split up files.
I tried doing something like this:
//server.js
var app = require('koa')();
var othermodule1 = require('othermodule1')();
var othermodule2 = require('othermodule2')();
var router = require('./config/routes')();
app.use(router.routes());
//routes.js
module.exports = require('koa-router')()
.get('*', function*(next){
othermodule1.something;
})
realizing that routes.js does not have access to 'othermodule1' after calling it from serverjs. I know that there's a way to pass needed variables during the require call, but I have a lot more than just 2 modules that I would need to pass. So from my probably naive perspective, this seems somewhat unnecessarily cumbersome. Someone care to enlighten me or is there actually a way to do this that I missed?

Each node.js module is meant to be a stand-alone sharable unit. It includes everything that it needs to do its job. That's the principle behind modules.
This principle makes for a little more overhead at the start of each module to require() in everything you need in that module, but it's only done once at the server startup and all modules are cached anyway so it isn't generally a meaningful performance issue.
You can make global things by assigning to the global object, but they that often breaks modularity and definitely goes against the design spirit of independently shareable modules.
In your specific code, if routes needs access to othermodule1, then it should just require() it in as needed. That's how modules work. routes should just include the things it needs. Modules are cached so requiring it many times just gives every require() the same module handle from a cache.
This is an adjustment in thinking from other systems, but once you get use to it, you just do it and it's no big deal. Either require() in what you need (the plain shareable module method) or pass something into a module on its constructor (the push method) or create init() methods so someone can initialize you properly or call some other module to get the things you need (the pull method).

ES6 exports/imports use-case, compared to traditional namespacing

I don't understand WHY and in what scenario this would be used..
My current web setup consists of lots of components, which are just functions or factory functions, each in their own file, and each function "rides" the app namespace, like : app.component.breadcrumbs = function(){... and so on.
Then GULP just combines all the files, and I end up with a single file, so a page controller (each "page" has a controller which loads the components the page needs) can just load it's components, like: app.component.breadcrumbs(data).
All the components can be easily accessed on demand, and the single javascript file is well cached and everything. This way of work seems extremely good, never saw any problem with this way of work. of course, this can (and is) be scaled nicely.
So how are ES6 imports for functions any better than what I described?
what's the deal with importing functions instead of just attaching them to the App's namespace? it makes much more sense for them to be "attached".
Files structure
/dist/app.js // web app namespace and so on
/dist/components/breadcrumbs.js // some component
/dist/components/header.js // some component
/dist/components/sidemenu.js // some component
/dist/pages/homepage.js // home page controller
// GULP concat all above to
/js/app.js // this file is what is downloaded
Then inside homepage.js it can look like this:
app.routes.homepage = function(){
"use strict";
var DOM = { page : $('#page') };
// append whatever components I want to this page
DOM.page.append(
app.component.header(),
app.component.sidemenu(),
app.component.breadcrumbs({a:1, b:2, c:3})
)
};
This is an extremely simplified code example but you get the point

Answers to this are probably a little subjective, but I'm going to do my best.
At the end of the day, both methods allow support creating a namespace for a piece of functionality so that it does not conflict with other things. Both work, but in my view, modules, ES6 or any other, provide a few extra benefits.
Explicit dependencies
Your example seems very bias toward a "load everything" approach, but you'll generally find that to be uncommon. If your components/header.js needs to use components/breadcrumbs.js, assumptions must be made. Has that file been bundled into the overall JS file? You have no way of knowing. You're two options are
Load everything
Maintain a file somewhere that explicitly lists what needs to be loaded.
The first option is easy and in the short term is probably fine. The second is complicated for maintainability because it would be maintained as an external list, it would be very easy to stop needing one of your component file but forget to remove it.
It also means that you are essentially defining your own syntax for dependencies when again, one has now been defined in the language/community.
What happens when you want to start splitting your application into pieces? Say you have an application that is a single large file that drives 5 pages on your site, because they started out simple and it wasn't big enough to matter. Now the application has grown and should be served with a separate JS file per-page. You have now lost the ability to use option #1, and some poor soul would need to build this new list of dependencies for each end file.
What if you start using a file in a new places? How do you know which JS target files actually need it? What if you have twenty target files?
What if you have a library of components that are used across your whole company, and one of they starts relying on something new? How would that information be propagated to any number of the developers using these?
Modules allow you to know with 100% certainty what is used where, with automated tooling. You only need to package the files you actually use.
Ordering
Related to dependency listing is dependency ordering. If your library needs to create a special subclass of your header.js component, you are no longer only accessing app.component.header() from app.routes.homepage(), which would presumable be running at DOMContentLoaded. Instead you need to access it during the initial application execution. Simple concatenation offers no guarantees that it will have run yet. If you are concatenating alphabetically and your new things is app.component.blueHeader() then it would fail.
This applies to anything that you might want to do immediately at execution time. If you have a module that immediately looks at the page when it runs, or sends an AJAX request or anything, what if it depends on some library to do that?
This is another argument agains #1 (Load everything) so you start having to maintain a list again. That list is again going to be a custom things you'll have come up with instead of a standardized system.
How do you train new employees to use all of this custom stuff you've built?
Modules execute files in order based on their dependencies, so you know for sure that the stuff you depend on will have executed and will be available.
Scoping
Your solution treats everything as a standard script file. That's fine, but it means that you need to be extremely careful to not accidentally create global variables by placing them in the top-level scope of a file. This can be solved by manually adding (function(){ ... })(); around file content, but again, it's one more things you need to know to do instead of having it provided for you by the language.
Conflicts
app.component.* is something you've chosen, but there is nothing special about it, and it is global. What if you wanted to pull in a new library from Github for instance, and it also used that same name? Do you refactor your whole application to avoid conflicts?
What if you need to load two versions of a library? That has obvious downsides if it's big, but there are plenty of cases where you'll still want to trade big for non-functional. If you rely on a global object, it is now up to that library to make sure it also exposes an API like jQuery's noConflict. What if it doesn't? Do you have to add it yourself?
Encouraging smaller modules
This one may be more debatable, but I've certainly observed it within my own codebase. With modules, and the lack of boilerplate necessary to write modular code with them, developers are encouraged to look closely on how things get grouped. It is very easy to end up making "utils" files that are giant bags of functions thousands of lines long because it is easier to add to an existing file that it is to make a new one.
Dependency webs
Having explicit imports and exports makes it very clear what depends on what, which is great, but the side-effect of that is that it is much easier to think critically about dependencies. If you have a giant file with 100 helper functions, that means that if any one of those helpers needs to depend on something from another file, it needs to be loaded, even if nothing is ever using that helper function at the moment. This can easily lead to a large web of unclear dependencies, and being aware of dependencies is a huge step toward thwarting that.
Standardization
There is a lot to be said for standardization. The JavaScript community has moved heavily in the direction of reusable modules. This means that if you hope into a new codebase, you don't need to start off by figuring out how things relate to eachother. Your first step, at least in the long run, won't be to wonder whether something is AMD, CommonJS, System.register or what. By having a syntax in the language, it's one less decision to have to make.
The long and short of it is, modules offer a standard way for code to interoperate, whether that be your own code, or third-party code.
Your current process is to concatenate everything always into a single large file, only ever execute things after the whole file has loaded and you have 100% control over all code that you are executing, then you've essentially defined your own module specification based on your own assumptions about your specific codebase. That is totally fine, and no-one is forcing you to change that.
No such assumptions can be made for the general case of JavaScript code however. It is precisely the objective of modules to provide a standard in such a way as to not break existing code, but to also provide the community with a way forward. What modules offer is another approach to that, which is one that is standardized, and one that offers clearer paths for interoperability between your own code and third-party code.

Dependency Injection vs. Managed Dependencies vs. Global Object

I'm working within a Javascript + BackboneJS (an MVC framework) + RequireJS framework, but this question is somewhat OO generic.
Let me start by explaining that in Backbone, your Views are a mix of traditional Views and Controllers, and your HTML Templates are the traditional MVC Views
Been racking my head about this for a while and I'm not sure what the right/pragmatic approach should be.
I have a User object that contains user preferences (like unit system, language selection, anything else) that a lot of code depends on.
Some of my Views do most of the work without the use of templates (by using 3rd party libs, like Mapping and Graphing libs), and as such they have a dependency on the User object to take care of unit conversion, for example. I'm currently using RequireJS to manage that dependency without breaking encapsulation too much.
Some of my Views do very little work themselves, and only pass on Model data to my templating engine / templates, which do the work and DO have a dependency on the User object, again, for things like units conversion. The only way to pass this dependency into the template is by injecting it into the Model, and passing the model into the template engine.
My question is, how to best handle such a widely needed dependency?
- Create an App-wide reference/global object that is accessible everywhere? (YUK)
- Use RequireJS managed dependencies, even though it's generally only recommended to use managed dependency loading for class/object definitions rather than concrete objects.
- Or, only ever use dependency injection, and manually pass that dependency into everything that needs it?

From a purely technical point of view, I would argue that commutable globals (globals that may change), especially in javascript, are dangerous and wrong. Especially since javascript is full of parts of code that get executed asynchronously. Consider the following code:
window.loggedinuser = Users.get("Paul");
addSomeStuffToLoggedinUser();
window.loggedinuser = Users.get("Sam");
doSomeOtherStuffToLoggedinUser();
Now if addSomeStuffToLoggedinUser() executes asynchronously somewhere (e.g. it does an ajax call, and then another ajax call when the first one finishes), it may very well be adding stuff to the new loggedinuser ("Sam"), by the time it gets to the second ajax call. Clearly not what you want.
Having said that, I'm even less of a supporter of having some user object that we hand around all the time from function to function, ad infinitum.
Personally, having to choose between these two evils, I would choose a global scope for things that "very rarely change" --- unless perhaps I was building a nuclear powerstation or something. So, I tend to make the logged in user available globally in my app, taking the risk that if somehow for some reason some call runs very late, and I have a situation where one user logs out and directly the other one logs in, something strange may happen. (then again, if a meteor crashes into the datacenter that hosts my app, something strange may happen as well... I'm not protecting against that either). Actually a possible solution would be to reload the whole app as soon as someone logs out.
So, I guess it all depends on your app. One thing that makes it better (and makes you feel like you're still getting some OO karma points) is to hide your data in some namespaced singleton:
var myuser = MyApp.domain.LoggedinDomain.getLoggedinUser();
doSomethingCoolWith(myuser);
in stead of
doSomethingCoolWith(window.loggedinuser);
although it's pretty much the same thing in the end...

I think you already answered your own question, you just want someone else to say it for you : ) Use DI, but you aren't really "manually" passing that dependency into everything since you need to reference it to use it anyways.

Considering the TDD approach, how would you test this? DI is best for a new project, but JS gives you flexible options to deal with concrete global dependencies when testing, ie: context construction. Going way back, Yahoo laid out a module pattern where all modules were loosely coupled and not dependent on each other, but that it was ok to have global context. That global context can make your app construction more pragmatic for things that are constantly reused. Its just that you need to apply that judiciously/sparingly and there need be very strong cases for those things being dynamic.

Is there a tool to remove unused methods in javascript?

I've got a collection of javascript files from a 3rd party, and I'd like to remove all the unused methods to get size down to a more reasonable level.
Does anyone know of a tool that does this for Javascript? At the very least give a list of unused/used methods, so I could do the manually trimming? This would be in addition to running something like the YUI Javascript compressor tool...
Otherwise my thought is to write a perl script to attempt to help me do this.

No. Because you can "use" methods in insanely dynamic ways like this.
obj[prompt("Gimme a method name.")]();

Check out JSCoverage . Generates code coverage statistics that show which lines of a program have been executed (and which have been missed).

I'd like to remove all the unused methods to get size down to a more reasonable level.
There are a couple of tools available:
npm install -g fixmyjs
fixmyjs <filename or folder>
A configurable module that uses JSHint (Github, docs) to flag functions that are unused and perform clean up as well.
I'm not sure that it removes undefined functions as opposed to flagging them. though it is a great tool for cleanup, it appears to lack compatibility with later versions of ECMAScript (more info below).
There is also the Google Closure Compiler which claims to remove dead JS but this is more of a build tool.
Updated
If you are using something like Babel, consider adding ESLint to your text editor, which can trigger a warning on unused methods and even variables and has a --fix CLI option for autofixing some errors and style issues.
I like ESLint because it contains multiple plugins for alternate libs (like React warnings if you're missing a prop), allowing you to catch bugs in advance. They have a solid ecosystem.
As an example: on my NodeJS projects, the config I use is based off of the Airbnb Style Guide.

You'll have to write a perl script. Take no notice of the nay-sayers above.
Such a tool could work with libraries that are designed to only make function calls explicitly. That means no delegates or pointers to functions would be allowed, the use of which in any case only results in unreadable "spaghetti code" and is not best practice. Even if it removes some of these hidden functions you'll discover most if not all of them in testing. The ones you dont discover will be so infrequently used that they will not be worth your time fixing them. Dont obsess with perfection. People go mad doing that.
So applying this one restriction to JavaScript (and libraries) will result in incredible reductions in page size and therefore load times, not to mention readability and maintainability. This is already the case for tools that remove unused CSS such as grunt_CSS and unCSS (see http://addyosmani.com/blog/removing-unused-css/) and which report typical reductions down to one tenth the original size.
Its a win/win situation.
Its noteworthy that all interpreters must address this issue of how to manage self modifying code. For the life of me I dont understand why people want to persist with unrestrained freedom. As noted by Triptych above Javascript functions can be called in ways that are literally "insane". This insane fexibility corrupts the fundamental doctrine of separation of code and data, enables real-time code injection, and invalidates any attempt to maintain code integrity. The result is always unreadable code that is impossible to debug and the side effect to JavaScript - removing the ability to run automatic code pre-optimisation and validation - is much much worse than any possible benefit.
AND - you'd have to feel pretty insecure about your work to want to deliberately obsficate it from both your collegues and yourself. Browser clients that do work extremely well take the "less is more" approach and the best example I've seeen to date is Microsoft Office combination of Access Web Forms paired with SharePoint Access Servcies. The productivity of having a ubiquitous heavy tightly managed runtime interpreter client and its server side clone is absolutely phenomenal.
The future of JavaScript self modifying code technologies therfore is bringing them back into line to respect the...
KISS principle of code and data: Keep It Seperate, Stupid.

Unless the library author kept track of dependencies and provided a way to download the minimal code [e.g. MooTools Core download], it will be hard to to identify 'unused' functions.
The problem is that JS is a dynamic language and there are several ways to call a function.
E.g. you may have a method like
function test()
{
//
}
You can call it like
test();
var i = 10;
var hello = i > 1 ? 'test' : 'xyz';
window[hello]();

I know this is an old question by UglifyJS2 supports removing unused code which may be what you are looking for.
Also worth noting that eslint supports an option called no-unused-vars which actually does some basic handling of detecting if functions are being used or not. It definitely detects it if you make the function anonymous and store it as a variable (but just be aware that as a variable the function declaration doesn't get hoisted immediately)
In the context of detecting unused functions, while extreme, you can consider breaking up a majority of your functions into separate modules because there are packages and tools to help detect unused modules. There is a little segment of sindreshorus's thoughts on tiny modules which might be relevant to that philosophy but that may be extreme for your use case.

Following would help:
If you have fully covered test cases, running Code Coverage tool like istanbul (https://github.com/gotwarlost/istanbul) or nyc (https://github.com/istanbuljs/nyc), would give a hint of untouched functions.
At least the above will help find the covered functions, that you may thought unused.