Does Using Javascript Modules vs normal Foreign Libs change build size much?

Testing Cljs JavaScript Modules with the JS-Joda library as an example. The ideal outcome would be to have some cljs code that uses only some of the JSJoda library, and only the used portion of it is included in the output build

Note: these are ungzipped sizes, resulting from advanced compilation

Results

Minimal (hello, world) Clojurescript

clojure -m figwheel.main --build no-other-deps

=> 94k

Now including js-joda as a normal foreign lib

clojure -Anot-module -m figwheel.main --build regular-cljsjs-build

=> 294K

Now using Js-Joda as a Javascript Module

clojure -m figwheel.main --build js-modules-test

=> 246K

Conclusion

Getting the library as a module does reduce size a bit, entirely due to advanced compilation renaming.

Still, JS-Joda has been included in it's entirety even though just some of it is used. IOW, Google Closure is not doing dead code elimination here. The page on the Clojurescript site mentions dead code eliminiation

So... is dead code elimination in the pipes for this scenario. Which pipes? When? etc

Or... is this some problem related to js-joda?

Or ... is the fact that the cljs code is referring to the entire 'js-joda' lib the problem, ie is there some way to do the equivalent of js import {Bar} from 'Foo''. Now that Google Closure understands these libraries, could the cljs :import be used? My experiments say not, but why not?

Pointing the foreign-lib to the "src" directory of js-joda was another idea (it should create foreign lib entries for each file), but doing that I get ' This language feature is only supported for ECMASCRIPT6 mode or better' - so newer version of Google Closure? some flag to enable this? transpile the js first?

To be continued ...