> It is important to realize that they will increase bundle sizes Absolutely, and it wouldn't make sense to program a tiny static webpage in e.g. Purescript.

> It is important to realize that they will increase bundle sizes Absolutely, and it wouldn't make sense to program a tiny static webpage in e.g. Purescript. That said, to put that into perspective, pulling 350 npm modules for a bigger project is kind of the norm now. Using compile-to-js languages will incur more overhead still and it depends on the project whether that's acceptable or not, but many times it most definitely is (also, I hope webassembly will help with bundle sizes in the future.) I'm not really up-to-date re Clojurescript's package manager, but I know people who've specifically stated that one of the reasons for using Clojurescript is that package management and bundling is just so much easier than the standard JS npm/yarn/bower/gulp/webpack/etc amalgamation.