4 ms·

This just looks like a bundler. The thing about gcc, the name you're aping here, is that it's a collection of compilers. This looks like neither a compiler nor

This just looks like a bundler. The thing about gcc, the name you're aping here, is that it's a collection of compilers. This looks like neither a compiler nor a collection of them. As far as I can tell this seems to be approximately 2,000 lines of JavaScript (half of which is tests) that wires together existing tools in an rather un-novel way. Or, in other words: an ad for "zeit".

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
I thought the same when I read the article. It sounds like it’s just a wrapper around webpack. Why wouldn’t I just use webpack aside from this tool being marginally faster? Is there something I’m missing here? Couldn’t we just take their improvements and implement them in webpack?
- Rauchg 8y ago
  The goal is to provide the experience that many other languages have, where you don’t configure anything. You just run “$tool build”
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Webpack works with no configuration as of version 4.
  - idle_zealot 8y ago
    Generally $tool has a config file in the root of the project or similar. Webpack and other js compilers/bundlers are the same.
Rauchg 8y ago
The goal is precisely to not just bundle, but incorporate important optimizations like the V8 Compile Cache (https://github.com/zeit/ncc/issues/51 https://github.com/zeit/ncc/issues/51), which is what inspired the project and name to begin with.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Seems like it'd be better as a webpack plugin. It's still not a compiler, by the way, nor a compiler collection, even with this feature included.
  - peter-m80 8y ago
    It is a compiler. Literally
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      It seems to me that the compiler here is V8.
    - jdc 8y ago
      One of these things is not like the other.
  - Rauchg 8y ago
    It’s definitely possible to extract some internals as plugins, but not all currently. It would make more sense as a collection of plugins, and perhaps exposed as a preset. But the intent is to precisely remove the extra setup, when all you need to do is publish your Node.js codebase as a single file.
iforgotpassword 8y ago
cat **.js > myprog.js
- Rauchg 8y ago
  Ncc handles bundling `node_modules`. Your suggestion also introduces problems by not respecting commonjs module boundaries. (They’re akin to function scopes)

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago

I thought the same when I read the article. It sounds like it’s just a wrapper around webpack. Why wouldn’t I just use webpack aside from this tool being marginally faster? Is there something I’m missing here? Couldn’t we just take their improvements and implement them in webpack?

Rauchg 8y ago
The goal is to provide the experience that many other languages have, where you don’t configure anything. You just run “$tool build”
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Webpack works with no configuration as of version 4.
- idle_zealot 8y ago
  Generally $tool has a config file in the root of the project or similar. Webpack and other js compilers/bundlers are the same.

Rauchg 8y ago

The goal is precisely to not just bundle, but incorporate important optimizations like the V8 Compile Cache (https://github.com/zeit/ncc/issues/51 https://github.com/zeit/ncc/issues/51), which is what inspired the project and name to begin with.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Seems like it'd be better as a webpack plugin. It's still not a compiler, by the way, nor a compiler collection, even with this feature included.
- peter-m80 8y ago
  It is a compiler. Literally
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    It seems to me that the compiler here is V8.
  - jdc 8y ago
    One of these things is not like the other.
- Rauchg 8y ago
  It’s definitely possible to extract some internals as plugins, but not all currently. It would make more sense as a collection of plugins, and perhaps exposed as a preset. But the intent is to precisely remove the extra setup, when all you need to do is publish your Node.js codebase as a single file.

iforgotpassword 8y ago

cat **.js > myprog.js

Rauchg 8y ago
Ncc handles bundling `node_modules`. Your suggestion also introduces problems by not respecting commonjs module boundaries. (They’re akin to function scopes)