Is adding package.module support worth changing the import?

Yes. If we still want to achieve treeshakability then everything should be in esm. default exports suck. We should get rid of them.

I didn't write default exports for half year and to be honest I have now a bunch of problems less in my development process.

@TrySound There is almost nothing to tree shake in this component. I disagree. I would rather have the issue fixed on the tooling side.

@oliviertassinari I meant material-ui treeshakability. This package should be treeshakable to not be a dead code in user bundler.

Also with cjs bundle produces bigger bundle.

Sorry, I don't want to sacrifice usability. This diff looks wrong to me:

-import EventListener from 'react-event-listener';
+import { EventListener } from 'react-event-listener';

This look wrong to me. It just doesn't work in our case.

import EventListener, { withOptions } from 'react-event-listener';

default exports was added as an interop with cjs. And it doesn't work with cjs as we can see. Named export doesn't make this library unusable. It's just more unified convention. You don't even ask the user to choose the name.

The relevant issue on webpack side: webpack/webpack#6584.