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

Grunt 1.0.0 released

gruntjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#71

Post by Cthulhu_ »

igl wrote: post #9

Obsolete before it hit 1.0. While grunt/gulp was fun for a while... i am not looking back to our 800 line grunt file, complicated async configuration and the tons of dev-dependencies. Webpack blew everything out of the water. 80 lines of config, hot-reloading, code-spliting, hash-filenames... Looking forward to whats coming next.

The 800 lines are you or your team's own fault; it's just a file run in NodeJS, it's trivial to separate it in task-specific files and load them with either `require` or one of the `loader` projects. Build tooling (what Grunt is) configuration, maintenance and maintainability is also the responsibility of developers.

Of course, the async thing (and such) is something I agree with, newer tooling has iterated and improved on Grunt.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#72

Post by Cthulhu_ »

hoodoof wrote: post #35

I feel sorry for the developers after reading all these comments. Why would they continue with such a project that gets such little love?

Because haters are always more vocal than the average user; complaining is easier (and easier to trigger) than praise.

The Grunt team compares the complaints with the actual amount of users and realizes it's a small (but vocal) minority, and that besides those, tens of thousands of projects use and depend on Grunt existing and staying maintained.

My previous project used Grunt because at the time it was the only tool existing (besides maybe using NPM directly, but using that for web projects wasn't hip yet at the time). We looked at Gulp for a while, realized that yes it would be a more compact configuration and such, but at the same time that it'd cost two weeks to convert the project to gulp without much advantages - builds were a few times a week, so no reason to move to Gulp to speed that up by a few seconds.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#73

Post by steveax »

vladikoff wrote: post #48

Hey! Core maintainer here. I see a lot of comments are basically saying our project is obsolete or sucks. That does not stop us from working on Grunt though. We are still seeing record download numbers, even with the 2 year old releases. This is why we felt it was important to keep releasing this software and supporting developers. For those who support and use Grunt - huge thank you! Pick up your free open-source co…

Congrats on the release! Grunt has saved me tons of time over the years. One of the things I admire about Grunt is the docs. They are well organized and clear.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#74

Post by nailer »

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…

You admit most of the world had moved on from AMD, but don't see why advertising AMD support as a main feature - to the point it's mentioned in the sites description - would dissuade people?

Being able to shim script tag libraries is mentioned in various places through the docs (and used to be even more prominent than it is now).

I'm responding out of charity here: you made an angry response, were shown to have misread the post, and haven't apologised. Be civil.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#75

Post by rtpg »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #30
igl wrote: post #9

Obsolete before it hit 1.0. While grunt/gulp was fun for a while... i am not looking back to our 800 line grunt file, complicated async configuration and the tons of dev-dependencies. Webpack blew everything out of the water. 80 lines of config, hot-reloading, code-spliting, hash-filenames... Looking forward to whats coming next.

Grunt was nasty as hell, and clearly didn't learn any of the lessons from, say, proper Makefiles from the UNIX world over the past 30 years. Gulp is a looooot better, especially when I have things like Foundation 6's zurb-template, which is basically configured out of the box how I setup my Foundation 5 era projects. I don't care how big a Gulp file is if I'm not the one having to do major maintenance on it.

I don't get it, what part of Makefiles are missing in Grunt? I've set up a project pretty simply through Grunt without too many headaches (after grocking how to properly write base tasks)

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#76

Post by Touche »

dereke wrote: post #16

I am so pleased I abandoned grunt/gulp. Life is so much simpler with simple build commands. Now I just run whatever I need using npm run.

A very simple thing that Make does is when you run `make` it will only run the recipe if something has changed. Using npm scripts eliminates this (as I'm guessing gulp does as well).

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#77

Post by k__ »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #61
DiabloD3 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grunt was nasty as hell, and clearly didn't learn any of the lessons from, say, proper Makefiles from the UNIX world over the past 30 years. Gulp is a looooot better, especially when I have things like Foundation 6's zurb-template, which is basically configured out of the box how I setup my Foundation 5 era projects. I don't care how big a Gulp file is if I'm not the one having to do major maintenance on it.

This is what I don't get. Do authors of these build tools actually sit down for a couple of months looking at things like Makefiles that have been around forever, perhaps even Maven, etc. Take all these things together and go "This is what sucks in all of them, and here's how we can do it better" and still cater for all the use cases that these tools are brilliant at. It's like there's no thought put into these tools…

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

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#79

Post by drinchev »

igl wrote: post #9

Obsolete before it hit 1.0. While grunt/gulp was fun for a while... i am not looking back to our 800 line grunt file, complicated async configuration and the tons of dev-dependencies. Webpack blew everything out of the water. 80 lines of config, hot-reloading, code-spliting, hash-filenames... Looking forward to whats coming next.

Not everything is covered by webpack. And also you just replaced huge configuration with another huge configuration.

Webpack is amazing tool, but it's not a task runner like gulp.

Re: Grunt 1.0.0 released

#80

Post by johnieeboy »

vladikoff wrote: post #48

Hey! Core maintainer here. I see a lot of comments are basically saying our project is obsolete or sucks. That does not stop us from working on Grunt though. We are still seeing record download numbers, even with the 2 year old releases. This is why we felt it was important to keep releasing this software and supporting developers. For those who support and use Grunt - huge thank you! Pick up your free open-source co…

just started using grunt for my django project. I can't even imagine going back to using something else.
Post reply on HN