Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grunt 1.0.0 released

gruntjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#41

Post by romankolpak »

kyriakos wrote: post #4
afloatboat wrote: post #2

Lately the decline in popularity of Grunt has been more and more noticeable for me. When adding new packages there are always usage instructions for Gulp, sometimes webpack and alternatives as well but Grunt seems to be notably absent. I'm contemplating switching to one of the more popular task runners, but that would mean having to rebuild a working flow. The question also remains what happens when you have to revis…

until the new shiny thing comes and replaces that. I still don't understand what's wrong with grunt (or whats better with gulp).

One huge advantage is speed - Grunt relies on disc I/O and copying files to temp folders, while Gulp is based on streams and all your file transformations are done in memory.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#43

Post by pcr0 »

nailer wrote: post #33
Ciantic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets itself with support for AMD and script tags? What are you talking about, it's all about bundling things automatically without script tags, you don't even need to write the damned html file if you use loader for it. Also it may have support for AMD, but it's key usage is to bundle libraries from npm using commonjs. I'm not saying webpack is all roses (even in version 2), but these two things are not the issue.

You misunderstand what I meant. Nobody has written or suggested that webpack outputs script tags or AMD. I simply stated that webpack markets itself as using script tags and AMD as input, which is true: from the meta description on webpack.github.io: "Webpack is a module bundler. It packs CommonJs/AMD modules i. e. for the browser" If you use AMD as input you have to get updates to your libraries separately, and your…

Where does it say it uses script tags for input? The quote you mention says CommonJS/AMD. CommonJS is the de-facto standard these days. Typically, people write in ES6 imports, which then gets transpiled to CommonJS anyway.

It accepts AMD as an option, but honestly, I've been using webpack for about a month and I haven't come across a single library that recommends using AMD. It's just there as an option for those who need it. Most of the world has moved on from AMD due to its issues, so I can't really see your point.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#44

Post by mikegioia »

hoodoof wrote: post #35

I feel sorry for the developers after reading all these comments. Why would they continue with such a project that gets such little love?

The comments here are not indicative of the developers at-large. This is mostly posturing to validate decisions to use other tools.

I love Grunt, I understand the complaints but it's a great system that's easy to understand and work with. It's not unlike Makefiles but the learning curve is lower with Grunt.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#45

Post by sciurus »

foldr wrote: post #14
CraigJPerry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You old curmudgeon you... ;-) Make has it's foibles - before we talk about those we need to declare are we talking gmake, nmake, BSD make etc. - our build scripts can break in the wrong make. And how will windows users collaborate (they'll install cygwin). Etc etc All that said though, I still find make to be lower barrier to entry. If I need to start a watcher or something, I generally have that in my npm package.js…

I had reservations about using make for node builds until I got berated by another curmudgeon on here, who kindly showed me all the tricks necessary to implement the rules I needed. I'm very very happy I switched to make. I think part of the issue is that I (and I suspect many others) though I knew basically how make works, except that I had no idea about % patterns, the patsubst function, etc.

Can you share any of those tricks?

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#46

Post by uhtred »

igl wrote: post #9

Obsolete before it hit 1.0. While grunt/gulp was fun for a while... i am not looking back to our 800 line grunt file, complicated async configuration and the tons of dev-dependencies. Webpack blew everything out of the water. 80 lines of config, hot-reloading, code-spliting, hash-filenames... Looking forward to whats coming next.

Holy crap! I left a company 6 months ago and we were using Gulp there, and it was, as far as I am aware, the hot thing to use (I'm no front-end dev). Now you're telling me it is obsolete?! Javascript world is silly.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#47

Post by sakopov »

I don't see the hype behind build tools. I still use Grunt on just about any project because I can just copy/paste the entire build process from another project and never come back to it again. Don't see much point in switching to anything else.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#48

Post by vladikoff »

Hey! Core maintainer here.

I see a lot of comments are basically saying our project is obsolete or sucks. That does not stop us from working on Grunt though.

We are still seeing record download numbers, even with the 2 year old releases. This is why we felt it was important to keep releasing this software and supporting developers.

For those who support and use Grunt - huge thank you! Pick up your free open-source copy made by volunteers on npm.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#49

Post by tragic »

romankolpak wrote: post #41
kyriakos wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

until the new shiny thing comes and replaces that. I still don't understand what's wrong with grunt (or whats better with gulp).

One huge advantage is speed - Grunt relies on disc I/O and copying files to temp folders, while Gulp is based on streams and all your file transformations are done in memory.

IME, with enough dependencies in enough tasks, it can get very slow to start.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#50

Post by moron4hire »

People keep saying "every grunt package makes its own way of doing things." I have not found that to be the case at all. Grunt has a lot of ways to specify groups of files, and many packages only show example usage for one of them, but they are actually largely interchangeable.

I'm a little incensed at the speed of it. It is very slow, for no apparent reason. But now I'm also wondering if it's not grunt's fault and actually the NPM ecosystem's fault for being way too dependency happy. I got a complaint from Windows about file name lengths being too long. Not in 20 years of using Windows have I seen this error but on corporate copy-folder-as-version-control network drives and NPM packages. So I'm concerned it might be spending most of its time just crawling my node_modules folder, because I only just now thought of this wrinkle and haven't stopped posting long enough to go do anything about it.

Post reply on HN