2 ms·
JavaScript development tends to involve a lot of files. Between Babel, ESLint, Webpack, Post-CSS with their high number of plugins, presets, and other support m
by andrewl-hn 6y ago
JavaScript development tends to involve a lot of files. Between Babel, ESLint, Webpack, Post-CSS with their high number of plugins, presets, and other support modules, Typescript, testing frameworks like Jest (that comes with it's own test runner, mocking facilities, transpile-aware code coverage etc.), and general tendency for JS developers to favor composing software out of many small modules - a typical JavaScript project (browser or Node) has thousands of modules and tens of thousands of files in node_modules folder.
Plus, a typical JS development process involves a filesystem-based watcher that reloads parts of an application on a fly as a developer changes code.
As a result, for a very big percentage of programmers filesystem performance is crucial for their day-to-day work.
There's an argument to be made that JS development ecosystem is unnecessary complex, and there are projects that try to change the status quo, but they are not ready for a prime time and aren't widespread enough yet.
- OJFord 6y agoHm I certainly sympathise, just hadn't occurred to me the filesystem might be a bottleneck here. I switched from my work Mac to my desktop and bought (or rather, so I could buy) more RAM, since it was exhausted building, and would frequently crash. I now have enough to be able to give it 'enough' and cgroup limit it from hogging more and interrupting my browsing etc. but I don't think I've given it so much that, what, the speed at which it can read the 100ks of files in order to 'webpack' them is the limiting factor. Perhaps I'm just (foolishly) content living with it much slower than you are, so I don't have everything else fast enough for that to be the problem.