First, if you want to just use objects-as-prefixes, the way require(...) works in node today, that's easy to do:

    module m at "blah.com";
    ... references to m go here ...

We also want to support other use cases, like binding the exports to names available in your local scope. We understand that not everyone likes that style, but I don't think the language should mandate a particular side in that fight.

Second, the `module m at "URL"` form above is a definition of `m`. It's just that you're allowed to refer to that binding as an object too. Would you rather have:

    module m at "example.com";
    import m;

That just seems like unnecessary typing to me.