71–80 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just tried it quickly; didn't work. It did something and then I got a blank page. Probably some config missing that it needs but the point is: no zero conf and doesn't work as advertised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Bundlers probably have a certain minimum complexity that can’t be reduced if they want to be universally applicable, but a lot of that can be hidden for most use cases, particularly if using the same framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Bear in mind that this is relative to webpack. A few lines practically is zero compared to a webpack configuration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the JavaScript ecosystem needs something akin to Boost. I do not like using Boost in C++, however the way their libraries are built and integrated into standard is awesome.
Yeah, I agree. "Tiny modules" is a thing in JS i.e there are people, influential developers, that champion the existence of modules like "left-pad", "is-positive-zero", etc. The idea is that "npm is the stdlib" but its not a very good one when your node_modules folder is always 1000+ large. This is one of a few tiring patterns in the JS ecosystem. The other is "you should be using grunt", "should be using gulp", "noo…
I think the ultimate solution to bundling is to go the way of the CLIs, and Angular CLI in particular, where the framework team configures a sensible default bundle config with a few options exposed via the CLI. The user can then build with a single command and everything just works. The user can eject from the CLI and configure manually if needs be, but most of the time that won’t be necessary. Bundlers probably hav…
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…
Do remember looking into it for small side project but ended up just using npm scripts, maybe that's part of it.
I think the ultimate solution to bundling is to go the way of the CLIs, and Angular CLI in particular, where the framework team configures a sensible default bundle config with a few options exposed via the CLI. The user can then build with a single command and everything just works. The user can eject from the CLI and configure manually if needs be, but most of the time that won’t be necessary. Bundlers probably hav…
Yup, just FYI Angulars CLI is based on Embers. Just putting it out there because the oldest thriving framework which put out a lot of great ideas often gets forgotten in these discussions :)
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.
I think really the value proposition here is “very little if any setup needed” and making so there was no setup possible may have gone too far.