Worth noting that ES-style imports do improve the scenario for cyclic dependencies though, assuming you do not need to reference the symbols imported during the

Worth noting that ES-style imports do improve the scenario for cyclic dependencies though, assuming you do not need to reference the symbols imported during the execution of the top level statements. This is because `import { bar } from './bar.js'` makes `bar` a "live binding" -- even if `bar.js` also imports `foo.js` and thus `bar` may initially be undefined due to the cyclic dependency, later when `bar.js` completes its initialization of `bar`, the identifier `bar` in `foo.js` will be updated to match. So if you just need to call that binding within, say, a function or a method call, its typically fine to do so assuming that by the time that function or method call is executed, both modules will have completed their initializations.