Back to all comparisonsTechPref
JavaScript / TypeScript Module Patterns

Named Exports vs Default Exports

Debate: Should modules export one thing by default or require explicit naming? Analyze real-world patterns from top TypeScript projects.

58%

Use Named Exports

42%

Use Default Exports

Team Named Exports

Explicit, discoverable, and enables better tree-shaking and tooling support.

Code Example

module.ts (named exports)
export interface User {
  id: string;
  name: string;
}

export const createUser = (name: string): User => ({
  id: Math.random().toString(),
  name,
});

export const getUserById = (id: string): User | null => {
  // implementation
  return null;
};

Key Benefits

  • Explicit about what's being exported
  • Better IDE autocompletion and intellisense
  • Enables effective tree-shaking
  • Prevents namespace pollution
  • Easier refactoring with rename tools
  • Scales well as modules grow

Statistics

Team Default Exports

Simple, familiar, and provides a clear single entry point for a module.

Code Example

module.ts (default export)
interface User {
  id: string;
  name: string;
}

const createUser = (name: string): User => ({
  id: Math.random().toString(),
  name,
});

const getUserById = (id: string): User | null => {
  // implementation
  return null;
};

export default {
  createUser,
  getUserById,
};

Key Benefits

  • Single, clear entry point
  • Simpler for module wrapping
  • Traditional CommonJS style
  • Useful for main module behaviors
  • Shorter import statements
  • Familiar to JavaScript developers

Statistics

Additional Insights

More data points to help you make an informed decision for your team.

995

repositories analyzed