Grunt 1.0.0 released

Post by mwhite » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 11:35 PM UTC

pcr0 wrote: post #43

nailer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by moron4hire » Wed, Apr 06, 2016, 3:26 AM UTC

DCoder wrote: post #65

moron4hire wrote: post #50

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 a…

The "file name too long" was an issue in npm v2, where each module installed its dependencies inside itself, recursively, leading to enormous node_modules/foo/node_modules/bar/node_modules/baz/node_modules/quux/node_modules/... chains. npm v3 was an attempt to fix this so it now tries to install all modules and their dependencies in the top level directory, unless there's a version conflict, in which case it falls ba…

Post by DiabloD3 » Wed, Apr 06, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

wmil wrote: post #102

k__ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, yes. When I saw that LiveScript was using Makefiles[0] to build, I was baffled. To me they were ancient and complicated C/C++ stuff. But when I looked into them, everything seemed rather straight forward, even a bit nicer than Gulp, because of the syntax. [0] https://github.com/gkz/LiveScript/blob/master/Makefile

Makefiles have some glaring issues that can't be easily fixed. The big one is that they break if there are spaces in file or directory names. Sure, you can argue spaces are bad practice. But they are common on OS X and windows. It's a little silly to use a build system that doesn't support them.