4 ms·

I would pay $50 for 30 minutes of the time of a webpack configuration expert. Or a similar amount for SAAS allowing me to select modules from a UI and chain the

I would pay $50 for 30 minutes of the time of a webpack configuration expert. Or a similar amount for SAAS allowing me to select modules from a UI and chain them as desired. I gave up on my desired configuration after spending 3-5+h in frustrated powerlessness.

almostarockstar 9y ago
Could you give a couple examples?
lukeqsee 9y ago
Having just gone through the setup process a few times, I concur. It is an excruciatingly bad entry to a powerful solution to front-end web development.
- zackify 9y ago
  The config is pretty straight forward once you understand how it all works. The docs have example configs for anything you need. Specify an entry point, add some loaders, and maybe a plugin or two, what are you stuck on?
  - andrei_says_ 9y ago
    I agree, it is a straight forward design (you chain things one after the other). I just couldn't make these specific items work together, at all.
zackify 9y ago
What were you trying to make work that you couldn't figure out?
- andrei_says_ 9y ago
  1. SCSS preprocessor followed by PostCSS-based autoprefixer, sourcemaps in dev and CSS minifyer when building. 2. CoffeeScript2 with support for modules, with uglifyer/minifier on build. Both 1. and 2. as a part of a middlemanapp dev/build process, which means the JS process watches and builds a file tree, and the SCSS process does the same. Even setting up ES6 had issues on build because some incompatibilities of the uglifyjs iirc. EDIT: Added clarification.
  - zackify 9y ago
    Scss is so annoying and if you ask me, slows builds down a ton in development. Also, that uglify stuff is annoying! Thankfully they are adding es6 support but most guides are outdated.... I feel you...
    - andrei_says_ 9y ago
      Yes, things That should “just work”, don’t. At all. For reasons that require expertise to uncover and even deeper expertise to solve. With solutions that may cause issues later. Talk about shaving the yak.
nolite 9y ago
https://hackhands.com/ https://hackhands.com/
- williamdclt 9y ago
  Do you use this service? Is it efficient?
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
    Hackhands does not work at all and it is completely inefficient (and frustrating to use) compared to other platforms. I attempted to use it twice and here is what I don't like about it: They give you NO idea whatsoever of how many people are available through the service, what kind of expertise they have or if/when anyone even will be available. Worse than that is when you submit a request, they don't send you any status updates or anything until you get an email that says "It looks like no experts were available" ask you what time YOU are available instead of letting you know when a fucking expert will be on! They also give you zero clue as to what kind of prices you should expect. Is "$2 a minute" going to attract anyone? How about $3? I don't know! In summary, I think Hackhands is probably one of the worse services that I've ever wasted my time trying to use.
peterbraden 9y ago
$100 an hour is incredibly low for a short term expert contract
tarr11 9y ago
BTW - someone please make a sane UI or config tool for webpack and post it to github.
- andrei_says_ 9y ago
  That would research and provide custom workarounds for all modules that don’t work, by themselves, or in this configuration, for reasons not yet known? I’d love that.
hasenj 9y ago
Did you consider a simple build script, e.g a make file or a nodejs script that just manually pipes the files in your codebase to the desired compilers/transpilers? That's how I always set things up and I never once wished for anything like gulp or webpack or whatever else is trendy these days.
- andrei_says_ 9y ago
  I am not an expert in those either... do you mean something like maybe gruntjs? I wish there was a way to drive cars without the need to be an auto mechanic.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    no, grunt is even worse. You know, just a plain old script with all the build steps laid out sequentially: feed this file to this command, pass these arguments, wait for command to finish, take output files and copy them over here .. etc.

almostarockstar 9y ago

Could you give a couple examples?

lukeqsee 9y ago

Having just gone through the setup process a few times, I concur. It is an excruciatingly bad entry to a powerful solution to front-end web development.

zackify 9y ago
The config is pretty straight forward once you understand how it all works. The docs have example configs for anything you need. Specify an entry point, add some loaders, and maybe a plugin or two, what are you stuck on?
- andrei_says_ 9y ago
  I agree, it is a straight forward design (you chain things one after the other). I just couldn't make these specific items work together, at all.

zackify 9y ago

What were you trying to make work that you couldn't figure out?

andrei_says_ 9y ago
1. SCSS preprocessor followed by PostCSS-based autoprefixer, sourcemaps in dev and CSS minifyer when building. 2. CoffeeScript2 with support for modules, with uglifyer/minifier on build. Both 1. and 2. as a part of a middlemanapp dev/build process, which means the JS process watches and builds a file tree, and the SCSS process does the same. Even setting up ES6 had issues on build because some incompatibilities of the uglifyjs iirc. EDIT: Added clarification.
- zackify 9y ago
  Scss is so annoying and if you ask me, slows builds down a ton in development. Also, that uglify stuff is annoying! Thankfully they are adding es6 support but most guides are outdated.... I feel you...
  - andrei_says_ 9y ago
    Yes, things That should “just work”, don’t. At all. For reasons that require expertise to uncover and even deeper expertise to solve. With solutions that may cause issues later. Talk about shaving the yak.

nolite 9y ago

https://hackhands.com/ https://hackhands.com/

williamdclt 9y ago
Do you use this service? Is it efficient?
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  Hackhands does not work at all and it is completely inefficient (and frustrating to use) compared to other platforms. I attempted to use it twice and here is what I don't like about it: They give you NO idea whatsoever of how many people are available through the service, what kind of expertise they have or if/when anyone even will be available. Worse than that is when you submit a request, they don't send you any status updates or anything until you get an email that says "It looks like no experts were available" ask you what time YOU are available instead of letting you know when a fucking expert will be on! They also give you zero clue as to what kind of prices you should expect. Is "$2 a minute" going to attract anyone? How about $3? I don't know! In summary, I think Hackhands is probably one of the worse services that I've ever wasted my time trying to use.

peterbraden 9y ago

$100 an hour is incredibly low for a short term expert contract

tarr11 9y ago

BTW - someone please make a sane UI or config tool for webpack and post it to github.

andrei_says_ 9y ago
That would research and provide custom workarounds for all modules that don’t work, by themselves, or in this configuration, for reasons not yet known? I’d love that.

hasenj 9y ago

Did you consider a simple build script, e.g a make file or a nodejs script that just manually pipes the files in your codebase to the desired compilers/transpilers? That's how I always set things up and I never once wished for anything like gulp or webpack or whatever else is trendy these days.

andrei_says_ 9y ago
I am not an expert in those either... do you mean something like maybe gruntjs? I wish there was a way to drive cars without the need to be an auto mechanic.
- hasenj 9y ago
  no, grunt is even worse. You know, just a plain old script with all the build steps laid out sequentially: feed this file to this command, pass these arguments, wait for command to finish, take output files and copy them over here .. etc.