module-runner doesn't feel that right with the two words. I wonder if we should have something more generic here. Is there other things that may be imported by runtimes later on?
Should we keep it as:

import { ModuleRunner } from 'vite/runtime'

with the meaning that it the entry point for Runtimes to import from?

module-runner was something that you proposed 😄

Is there other things that may be imported by runtimes later on?

No, the idea is to keep this as small as possible. Making it generic would encourage putting more things here.

I'm good re-proposing stuff 😅

I don't think it will encourage us to put more things there. I kind of like vite/runtime better here. But we can move forward and later on rename the things if we want. Maybe @sapphi-red or others can chip in to see what sounds better to them.

I vote to module-runner. I'm fine with runner, too.

runtime feels a bit different to me. In the new environment API, I understand that the term "runtime" means the actual runtime (e.g. node, deno, workerd) and not the module runner/loader/executor built using Vite's API.