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

Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 98 posts

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#21

Post by tomnipotent »

joshwa wrote: post #2

Ah, the neverending cycle. 1. The existing tool is way too complicated to configure and slow. Let me introduce a new, zero-configuration, blazing fast tool 2. OK so because it's strongly opinionated there are some things it can't do. So we'll allow you to extend it via plugins. You'll have to configure this. 3. Due to the increasing popularity, we are making a meta-version that lets you re-plug any element in the ent…

You mean iterating on something, sorta the entire conceptual model behind the scientific method of experimentation?

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#22

Post by rydel »

cjhanks wrote: post #4

The code looks nice, I hope it has helped you in your life. But frankly, if a JavaScript developer ever really wants to solve the problem... Learn enough C++ to write the equivalent code that compiles 6.5M in 0.1 seconds (assuming a nice HD).

This is fine argument. Although I work primarily in JS, I don’t think that this is the tool for any job. There are lot of nice tools in JS out there. While using single tool written in JS it might be not looks slow, but when you must use multiple of them in day to day work it start be a problem. To sum up: I don’t think JS was designed to build such tools. Although it is very nice language to write in, it is not so efficient in runtime.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#23

Post by cjhanks »

nemothekid wrote: post #6
cjhanks wrote: post #4

The code looks nice, I hope it has helped you in your life. But frankly, if a JavaScript developer ever really wants to solve the problem... Learn enough C++ to write the equivalent code that compiles 6.5M in 0.1 seconds (assuming a nice HD).

C++ doesn't even compile 6.5M of C++ in .1 seconds.

If you do absolutely zero instruction optimization or re-ordering. Literally mapping the BNF grammar to a syntax tree capable of simple syntactic reduction... I would be surprised if it did not lag behind disk read speeds.

Traversing that tree to remove unambiguous dead branches seems pretty clear. Perhaps if you get into a tricky manipulation between strings and syntax you could add a little runtime...

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#24

Post by yzmtf2008 »

joshwa wrote: post #2

Ah, the neverending cycle. 1. The existing tool is way too complicated to configure and slow. Let me introduce a new, zero-configuration, blazing fast tool 2. OK so because it's strongly opinionated there are some things it can't do. So we'll allow you to extend it via plugins. You'll have to configure this. 3. Due to the increasing popularity, we are making a meta-version that lets you re-plug any element in the ent…

I think this is a great exaggeration of the "javascript build tools are hard to config" meme, and it honestly is obsolete. Maybe the meme was relevant two years ago, but every since (1) create-react-app and (2) webpack 3, the configuration story has greatly improved.

With Webpack 4 and Parcel especially, these tool are both zero config and configurable. Your point 1 and 3 are actually not mutually exclusive, and repeating the meme just sounds like you're perhaps out of the loop for a bit.

While the Javascript developer experience truly was horrible a few years back, it has dramatically become better. Try it, and you might be pleasantly surprised :)

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#25

Post by synthmeat »

Gulp has/had the right approach. There's only so much flexibility and complexity configuration format can support without becoming strange copy-pasted incantations that can only be reasonably expressed and clearly visualized through code. And they've proven that, eating Grunt's lunch, but then they blew it with never-ending alpha and general stewardship fail.

And with regards to Parcel vs Webpack, it's not (at least not yet) even a competition since webpack 4 is basically zero-configuration and is so much more advanced tool at all levels.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#26

Post by cjhanks »

tomnipotent wrote: post #16
cjhanks wrote: post #4

The code looks nice, I hope it has helped you in your life. But frankly, if a JavaScript developer ever really wants to solve the problem... Learn enough C++ to write the equivalent code that compiles 6.5M in 0.1 seconds (assuming a nice HD).

Oh no! One language has a build process and toolchain... We should clearly throw everything else out and just use this one hammer for everything! /s Believe it or not, some people have problems in domains with contexts that have nothing to do with yours and the things they come up with are equally valid solutions.

It is not a question of C++ being better than JavaScript or vice-versa in some esoteric sense.

Compiling code from C++ to WASM is counter-productive if the native JavaScript is fine. It's just that native languages seem to perform quite a bit better in the domains of graph construction, graph optimization, and even basic string manipulation.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#27

Post by cjhanks »

rydel wrote: post #22
cjhanks wrote: post #4

The code looks nice, I hope it has helped you in your life. But frankly, if a JavaScript developer ever really wants to solve the problem... Learn enough C++ to write the equivalent code that compiles 6.5M in 0.1 seconds (assuming a nice HD).

This is fine argument. Although I work primarily in JS, I don’t think that this is the tool for any job. There are lot of nice tools in JS out there. While using single tool written in JS it might be not looks slow, but when you must use multiple of them in day to day work it start be a problem. To sum up: I don’t think JS was designed to build such tools. Although it is very nice language to write in, it is not so e…

I agree.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#28

Post by yzmtf2008 »

cjhanks wrote: post #23
nemothekid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C++ doesn't even compile 6.5M of C++ in .1 seconds.

If you do absolutely zero instruction optimization or re-ordering. Literally mapping the BNF grammar to a syntax tree capable of simple syntactic reduction... I would be surprised if it did not lag behind disk read speeds. Traversing that tree to remove unambiguous dead branches seems pretty clear. Perhaps if you get into a tricky manipulation between strings and syntax you could add a little runtime...

If you do absolutely zero instruction optimization or re-ordering, JavaScript takes 0 seconds to compile, and you can use almost-complete feature set of ES6. /s

Come on man, that's beyond the point. Just because JavaScript needs to be compiled, doesn't mean it has a worse experience than compiling C++.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#29

Post by spankalee »

I love that Parcel is out, even if yes it is another bundle, because it helps highlight the major problem with bundlers right now: they (but especially WebPack) are a meta-platform over the web unto themselves and they encourage use of features that are not supported by the web platform, in a way that's not easily transformed into what the web platform does currently, or will realistically, support, creating lock-in.

Just as we're getting to the point where many of these tools should be optional because we have great modern JS and modules support in browsers, and many projects are already written in supposedly standard modules, many are blocked from actually shipping code that runs un-built on the browser because of bundler features like importing images, CSS, etc.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#30

Post by cjhanks »

voltagex_ wrote: post #8
cjhanks wrote: post #4

The code looks nice, I hope it has helped you in your life. But frankly, if a JavaScript developer ever really wants to solve the problem... Learn enough C++ to write the equivalent code that compiles 6.5M in 0.1 seconds (assuming a nice HD).

Do you know enough C++ to try that? I'd be really interested to see the results - I'm not sure language is the bottleneck.

Yes.
Post reply on HN