Migrate FFI to ES modules

[JordanMartinez]

Description of the change

Backlinking to purescript/purescript#4244

Migrates FFI to ES modules. This continues what was started in #284 but using a different branch named es-modules-libraries to ensure further development on the compiler isn't affected by commits pushed to this PR.

This PR also succeeds #264 since that PR was not opened by the 'working-group-purescript-es' org, which allows multiple people to push to the PR if the original submitter is gone for while.

This PR will fail to build until pulp has been updated to support ES modules when one calls pulp run and pulp test. See purescript-contrib/pulp#400 for more info.

---

Checklist:

• Added the change to the changelog's "Unreleased" section with a reference to this PR (e.g. "- Made a change (#0000)")
• Linked any existing issues or proposals that this pull request should close
• Updated or added relevant documentation
• Added a test for the contribution (if applicable)

[JordanMartinez]

PRs to pulp to support ES modules are ready for review:

• Migrate pulp to GH Actions: Finish GH Actions migration purescript-contrib/pulp#399
• Update pulp to work on v0.15.0 PS version: Support upcoming v0.15.0 compiler purescript-contrib/pulp#401

[JordanMartinez]

CI builds now 🎉

[JordanMartinez]

The alpha-02 release is now on GH. Restarting CI to verify this PR still builds.

[JordanMartinez]

CI builds on the alpha-02 release.

[thomashoneyman]

We need to be careful that setup-purescript has auto-updated to the latest unstable release before re-running CI. For example, it's still on alpha-01:

https://github.com/purescript-contrib/setup-purescript/blob/81d7c48c3f39de23dcd3626ab216699010200db2/dist/versions-v2.json#L2-L4

and so that re-run of CI pulled in the old purs:

Cached path /opt/hostedtoolcache/purs/0.15.0-alpha-01/x64, adding to PATH

I've restarted the sync versions job there so that it updates the file and then we can re-run CI here.

[JordanMartinez]

Ah, good catch.

[thomashoneyman]

I don't recall if we ended up agreeing on ES6 in the eslint configurations vs. just updating the parserOptions.sourceType field. Do you happen to have a link to that discussion?

If we are going forward with ES6, then I'm curious if we need to set both env: es6 and parserOptions.ecmaVersion: 6. What happens if we just remove env but still set the parser option to ecmaVersion 6?

[thomashoneyman]

I don't recall if we ended up agreeing on ES6 in the eslint configurations vs. just updating the parserOptions.sourceType field. Do you happen to have a link to that discussion?

If we are going forward with ES6, then I'm curious if we need to set both env: es6 and parserOptions.ecmaVersion: 6. What happens if we just remove env but still set the parser option to ecmaVersion 6?

[JordanMartinez]

Huh... I remember this being important, but I can't recall why. However, running eslint src test doesn't report anything with es6: true removed.

[thomashoneyman]

This looks good to me other than the discussion around the eslint configuration.

[thomashoneyman]

What's the reason for the prerelease version of Pulp? Should this be 16.0.0?

[JordanMartinez]

I made a pre-release of 16.0.0 in case we wanted to add support for esbuild later or come across other bugs.

[thomashoneyman]

@JordanMartinez Is it acceptable to delete the es-modules-libraries branch, or does it need to be kept around for the sake of upstream packages?

[JordanMartinez]

The working-group-purescript-es/package-set#main should be using the es-modules branch still, but [email protected] would still try to install the branch via pulp ini. So, perhaps we should hold off until a [email protected] can be released that just installs master from the core repo, not the es-modules-libraries branch from the working group repo?