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

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#61

Post by carbolymer »

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…

Welcome to the world of web developers, where reinventing a wheel is required at least once a day.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#62

Post by egeozcan »

dmitriid wrote: post #60
yzmtf2008 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, I looked at ejecting as early as September 2016, but why let that stop you from saying “you’re wrong on so many levels” :) Looking at JavaScript build tools today and ridiculing it makes as much sense as ridiculing the width of car lanes (from width of wagons) or ridiculing the width of rockets (width of railroads). Create-react-app works just fine with the 80% case you wanted so badly for webpack team to implem…

You can look at it today, it will be mostly the same: hacks, inscrutable configuration, custom overrides for stupid things etc. etc. etc. I just looked at it a minute ago. As for the rest you are equally wrong in anything from assuming that webpack 3 made configuration easier to assuming that configuration became easier just because CRA hides all this complexity from us.

You don't need to deal with the configuration for 80% of the use cases. If you need something custom, it's a good investment to learn the tool you are depending, and I don't think it's inscrutable: https://webpack.js.org/concepts/

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#63

Post by worldsayshi »

vmware505 wrote: post #41
mattbreeden wrote: post #35

I hate doing javascript. I have no desire to attempt to understand or mess with JS or build systems past the bare minimum I can manage to get a project working so I can move on with my life. So I tried using this. It was nice while what I was doing fit inside of everything that was default settings and/or what maintainers used. As soon as I stepped outside of that I ran into things like having to hope someone impleme…

Actually, if you prefer strickt typed languages, maybe give TypeScript a try. It is such a beauty, make JavaScript great again. ;)

Yes, I would say that typescript is the best way to do JavaScript in 2018. I just converted a Babel es7 project to typescript. I feel like I ended up with a simpler build system in addition to type checking and working source maps. I needed to add a few type declarations to make it build though.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#64

Post by kabes »

Jasper_ wrote: post #40

I spent the day finally adding a modern build system / bundler to my side project, and I chose Parcel. Parcel is really cool! I really wish they'd stop calling it "zero-configuration". It has configuration options (--out-dir, --public-url), there's just no configuration file for them. I really wish they would make one, since it's annoying to have your configuration be hidden in a batch file.

Yeah, In my experience Parcel is nice, but Meteor does a better job at offering a zero-config build system than parcel. Because it also provides the node server (which may of course be seen as a drawback to some) it allows to do stuff like multiple bundles for multiple browsers, exact code splitting using dynamic imports etc. with actual zero-config.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#65

Post by IshKebab »

yzmtf2008 wrote: post #19

Congrats to the Parcel team! Really great work. Having used Parcel in personal projects for the past year, it really is a great user experience. Despite what people says in the comments, Parcel has its (great) value. The ability to import a rust file directly and have it compiled to a web assembly module for example, is a great piece of engineering and exceeded my expectations for web build tools. Parcel also hits th…

Better than C++ build systems is a very low bar.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#67

Post by hazza1 »

Jasper_ wrote: post #40

I spent the day finally adding a modern build system / bundler to my side project, and I chose Parcel. Parcel is really cool! I really wish they'd stop calling it "zero-configuration". It has configuration options (--out-dir, --public-url), there's just no configuration file for them. I really wish they would make one, since it's annoying to have your configuration be hidden in a batch file.

The planned v2 of parcel will have a configuration file.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#68

Post by chrismorgan »

hazza1 wrote: post #67
Jasper_ wrote: post #40

I spent the day finally adding a modern build system / bundler to my side project, and I chose Parcel. Parcel is really cool! I really wish they'd stop calling it "zero-configuration". It has configuration options (--out-dir, --public-url), there's just no configuration file for them. I really wish they would make one, since it's annoying to have your configuration be hidden in a batch file.

The planned v2 of parcel will have a configuration file.

Without investigating, I genuinely can’t tell whether you are joking or not. It seems plausible, save for the fact that would completely undermine the primary marketing message.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#70

Post by borplk »

bradknowles wrote: post #12

IMO, the fact that 1726 modules is a “reasonable” number for a web app is a clear indication that there is something seriously wrong with this process.

Another factor contributing to this being the norm is the fact that web applications are always under pressure to count the bytes over the wire so there's a tendency to break things up into smaller chunks. Otherwise people would be moaning about large files.
Post reply on HN