Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler • Hacker News Board

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#91

Post by dmitriid » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 9:37 AM UTC

egeozcan wrote: post #62

dmitriid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Concepts don't describe how to string together four conflicting plugins together just to get predictable caching, for example.

There's only so many hours in the day. There are better things in life than to fight a build tool.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#92

Post by egeozcan » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:03 AM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #91

egeozcan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Concepts don't describe how to string together four conflicting plugins together just to get predictable caching, for example. There's only so many hours in the day. There are better things in life than to fight a build tool.

You don't have to. Just don't use those plug-ins? If you do need that functionality, it makes sense to "fight the build tool" a bit (or just go through the docs, they really aren't as bad as you say).

I personally always found a solution with Webpack. I find this amazing for a tool which is so young and written in a language without static types.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#93

Post by mirko22 » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 3:19 PM UTC

voltagex_ wrote: post #9

simplecomplex wrote: post #5

Please God no. We don’t need another bundler. Also. What’s up with the obsessive use of emojis everywhere? Take a look at this issue for example: https://github.com/parcel-bundler/parcel/issues/144

I work in a beige organisation where we're not allowed to use emojis in tickets (they wouldn't render correctly on our PCs anyway). I can't wait to work somewhere else that allows it - I have to spend 8 hours a day at work, may as well enjoy myself a little bit.

I work somewhere where i can use emojis and fight for not using them cos they are distracting and don’t add value. If you red scientific paper full of emojis would you take it seriously?

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#94

Post by mattbreeden » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

h1d wrote: post #81

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…

Are you comparing that as a new web pack user or you're already used to it with a bias of your "hate" toward new JS stuff? Perhaps your problem will be solved as parcel takes more time for third parties to fill those small niches.

> Are you comparing that as a new web pack user or you're already used to it with a bias of your "hate" toward new JS stuff?

A new user. Most of the time I spent was reading docs.

> Perhaps your problem will be solved as parcel takes more time for third parties to fill those small niches.

Oh yes, probably. That's basically what the advantage of Webpack was. There was more 3rd party stuff and it actually worked. Though really I'd want more first party support, otherwise I'm losing the 'zero configuration' sale that got me to try to use it in the first place.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#95

Post by h1d » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

merricksb wrote: post #85

Discussed 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853149 (435 points/163 comments)

I almost feel 6 months apart is qualified for another discussion on this fast changing ecosystem.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#96

Post by flavio81 » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

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. ;)

>make JavaScript great again

It was never great, not even good.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#97

Post by jillesvangurp » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:53 AM UTC

h1d wrote: post #88

jillesvangurp wrote: post #69

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.

What's the point of posting a problem without actually describing it? People who haven't tried can't even tell if you just screwed it up or there's actually a problem.

Was just pointing out that the tool did not work as advertised (i.e. without configuration). As in parcel index.html does not produce a working app for me. There's nothing to screw up here. Either that works or it doesn't. In my case, it doesn't. It fails to self configure as advertised and it fails to tell me what broke and why (or even that it broke). But it is quite obviously not producing a working application for me.

I imagine this relates to a whole range of broken assumptions it makes about where files actually are in my project, how things are configured on my system, etc. Normally you'd fix that by configuring these things. Since it doesn't provide a whole lot of documentation or guidance other than this thing needing no configuration because it is so smart, I decided against pursuing this thing any further and uninstalled parcel.

Re: Parcel: Fast, zero configuration web application bundler

#98

Post by thatswrong0 » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:19 AM UTC

ksec wrote: post #83

thatswrong0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caching and parallelization are my complaints with WebPack. WebPack doesn't cache that well out of the box, and plugins like HardSource seem to have errors often enough that they're kind of annoying. WebPack also doesn't have parallelization built in, so you need something like HappyPack. Maybe I was doing something stupid, but I wasn't able to get HappyPack and HardSource to work together nicely.

>Caching and parallelization are my complaints with WebPack I thought those were fixed in v4?

They made it faster, but per the V4 announcement:
PS: we haven’t implemented Multicore, or Persistent Caching yet (slated for version 5). This means that there is still lots of room for improvement!!!!
It _is_ coming, which I'm excited about.

https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-released-today-6cdb9947...