3 ms·
By "no observed downside", I meant once the toolchain is set up. Now, I get Hot Module Replacement and JS Harmony sugars for free, without having to worry abou
by bsimpson 11y ago
By "no observed downside", I meant once the toolchain is set up. Now, I get Hot Module Replacement and JS Harmony sugars for free, without having to worry about which browsers natively support which new features.
Your point about perceived complexity/intimidation is a good one, but for me, removing cross browser inconsistencies simplifies development more than Webpack complicates it.
- nostrademons 11y agoThere's always a cost to complexity, and it's usually in interop. What happens if you want to share a quick technology demo with a non-technical person over e-mail? What if you want your business cofounder to be able to tweak CSS by herself, and not have to learn what "setting up a toolchain" means? What if you're leading a team (or worse, a department or company) of people who aren't familiar with the latest in the JS world, need to do minor tweaks to the frontend, but can't justify learning a whole stack of technologies for something they spend 20% of their time in? All of these are real scenarios from my professional career. I like Babel too and the bulk of my new development is in ES6, but ubiquity is a really nice feature for development tools, probably the nicest of all.