Turbopack, the successor to Webpack • Hacker News Board

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#91

Post by truthwhisperer » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

jacquesc wrote: post #77

rsanheim wrote: post #60

Looks impressive, but proof will be in the actual day to day dev experience and configuration, not the perf. Vite and esbuild are fast enough, and I feel the winner will be more about usability, docs, easy config, etc. That aside, it is just so frustrating and sad that this just continues the fragmentation in the JS build space. It is beyond exhausting at this point. I don't care about vite vs (or with) esbuild vs tu…

Agreed. Every time NextJS changes out their build system for speed, its users lose out on all kinds of functionality that they were depending on before. Moving away from Babel to SWC meant we could no longer use SCSS within JSX styled components. We first switched everything to plain CSS, which was a nightmare IMHO. Now slowly switching things to SCSS modules. Now with Turbopack, we lose that too: https://turbo.build…

No post body was provided.

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#92

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

thatswrong0 wrote: post #41

This looks great, but I feel like calling this a successor to Webpack in its current state is disingenuous, considering the roadmap literally says: “Currently, migrating to Turbopack from Webpack is not yet possible.” At least the marketing website is snazzy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[deleted]

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#93

Post by djbusby » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #82

tshaddox wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think any of the current options are good enough that I would want the community to settle on one of them at this point at the expense of any innovation or experimentation.

We’ve been doing JavaScript development for how many years now? And still no bundling options that are good enough? Or at least one that can continue to evolve vs. creating a successor, etc.

By my count its 23 years.

The biggest issue in FOSS is folk don't wanna join a "good enough" project and move it. Sometimes the project is contributor hostile (rare?)

And we end up with basically: "I'll build my own moonbase with blackjack and hookers!"

All that starting from scratch costs loads of impossible-to- recover-time.

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#94

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

rsanheim wrote: post #60

Looks impressive, but proof will be in the actual day to day dev experience and configuration, not the perf. Vite and esbuild are fast enough, and I feel the winner will be more about usability, docs, easy config, etc. That aside, it is just so frustrating and sad that this just continues the fragmentation in the JS build space. It is beyond exhausting at this point. I don't care about vite vs (or with) esbuild vs tu…

[deleted]

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#95

Post by EastSmith » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

Too much marketing speak I think.

> We're planning Turbopack as the successor to Webpack. In the future, we plan to give Turbopack all the tools needed to support your Webpack app.

> Currently, migrating to Turbopack from Webpack is not yet possible. In the future, we're planning to offer a smooth migration path for all Webpack users to join the Turbopack future.

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#96

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

EastSmith wrote: post #95

Too much marketing speak I think. > We're planning Turbopack as the successor to Webpack. In the future, we plan to give Turbopack all the tools needed to support your Webpack app. > Currently, migrating to Turbopack from Webpack is not yet possible. In the future, we're planning to offer a smooth migration path for all Webpack users to join the Turbopack future.

[deleted]

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#97

Post by derekdahmer » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #82

tshaddox wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think any of the current options are good enough that I would want the community to settle on one of them at this point at the expense of any innovation or experimentation.

We’ve been doing JavaScript development for how many years now? And still no bundling options that are good enough? Or at least one that can continue to evolve vs. creating a successor, etc.

Webpack was flexible and “good enough.” But it turns out rust-based bundlers are 10-100x faster and so the definition of “good enough” has changed, for good reason.

It’s hard to overstate how game changing this new wave of zero-config, ultrafast rust bundlers are for the day-to-day dev experience.

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#98

Post by mklepaczewski » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

shrimpx wrote: post #73

rsanheim wrote: post #60

Looks impressive, but proof will be in the actual day to day dev experience and configuration, not the perf. Vite and esbuild are fast enough, and I feel the winner will be more about usability, docs, easy config, etc. That aside, it is just so frustrating and sad that this just continues the fragmentation in the JS build space. It is beyond exhausting at this point. I don't care about vite vs (or with) esbuild vs tu…

Is rollup still a thing?

What do you mean by "still"? I just learned that it exists a month ago! I wish I was joking...

JS is not my main language, true, but damn it's hard to keep up. I think it took me less time to be productive with Typescript than with webpack.

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#99

Post by encryptluks2 » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:05 PM UTC

lewantmontreal wrote: post #76

rsanheim wrote: post #60

Looks impressive, but proof will be in the actual day to day dev experience and configuration, not the perf. Vite and esbuild are fast enough, and I feel the winner will be more about usability, docs, easy config, etc. That aside, it is just so frustrating and sad that this just continues the fragmentation in the JS build space. It is beyond exhausting at this point. I don't care about vite vs (or with) esbuild vs tu…

JS has 10x the amount of developers of all other languages combined, that translates to a lot of ideas on how to progress the different avenues of JS land.

It is also the primary language taught to bootcamp developers looking to get started, and so a lot of suggestions and ideas come from people without any real experience.

Re: Turbopack, the successor to Webpack

#100

Post by Rapzid » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 8:06 PM UTC

jacquesc wrote: post #77

rsanheim wrote: post #60

Looks impressive, but proof will be in the actual day to day dev experience and configuration, not the perf. Vite and esbuild are fast enough, and I feel the winner will be more about usability, docs, easy config, etc. That aside, it is just so frustrating and sad that this just continues the fragmentation in the JS build space. It is beyond exhausting at this point. I don't care about vite vs (or with) esbuild vs tu…

Agreed. Every time NextJS changes out their build system for speed, its users lose out on all kinds of functionality that they were depending on before. Moving away from Babel to SWC meant we could no longer use SCSS within JSX styled components. We first switched everything to plain CSS, which was a nightmare IMHO. Now slowly switching things to SCSS modules. Now with Turbopack, we lose that too: https://turbo.build…

As a performance nightmare you can't wake up from, SCSS can't die soon enough. As someone who depends on it currently though I def understand the frustration with losing support.