3 ms·

>* It has a weird mix of own and Rollup config settings that seems somewhat unpredictable Oh god, this is a giant red flag. This is precisely one of my biggest

>* It has a weird mix of own and Rollup config settings that seems somewhat unpredictable Oh god, this is a giant red flag. This is precisely one of my biggest gripes with Quasar (a Vue framework), which, on top of webpack/vue adds its own config that are intermingled with vue's and webpack's, and its honestly a mess, and oftentimes just straight up makes problems harder to solve. I am obviously not railing against config dedicated to a single tool in a toolchain, but the way you described it rings a bell, especially the "unpredictability". >* Many open issues regarding module imports, for ex, when a CJS module imports an ES one This also seems to confirm my and other's suspicion, that the tool isn't really "deliver-grade". >If you hit a wall, install speed-measure-webpack-plugin to get some help. But on the other hand, this is at least the fifth plugin I have heard someone recommend, dedicated just to profiling Webpack. What do you think about the time difference shown in the article? I sort of feel it's a bit disingenuous since the test included a lot of other variables, but it seems hard to argue against it if it's this plain. Is this a config issue, or a "most commonly used loader" issue...?

eliseumds 5y ago
I'd be dishonest if I told you I was able to compare them 1-to-1. I couldn't finish my Vite setup because of bugs and lack of proper SSR support. I believe that, at this point, people are just nitpicking. When working on a client-side-only app, Vite is faster, but not by that much. In one of our apps, I saw it starting up in 1s compared to 2s with Webpack, and reloads in 100ms compared to 250ms. This is a Preact/TS/Emotion app that outputs almost 7MB of assets, 61 files to be precise, and works on IE11. And I hadn't even tried persistent caching with it yet. Webpack 5 with esbuild is a fast-enough solution. NextJS is a well-established tool now and version 10.2 uses Webpack 5 under the hood. V11 is looking insanely fast (I suspect they replaced Babel with esbuild, and did some witchery): https://twitter.com/shuding_/status/1378086219708473344 https://twitter.com/shuding_/status/1378086219708473344. So yeah, slow performance with Webpack is definitely caused by a bad set of loaders/plugins. Eject a CRA app and you'll see a monster coming out.

eliseumds 5y ago

I'd be dishonest if I told you I was able to compare them 1-to-1. I couldn't finish my Vite setup because of bugs and lack of proper SSR support. I believe that, at this point, people are just nitpicking. When working on a client-side-only app, Vite is faster, but not by that much. In one of our apps, I saw it starting up in 1s compared to 2s with Webpack, and reloads in 100ms compared to 250ms. This is a Preact/TS/Emotion app that outputs almost 7MB of assets, 61 files to be precise, and works on IE11. And I hadn't even tried persistent caching with it yet. Webpack 5 with esbuild is a fast-enough solution. NextJS is a well-established tool now and version 10.2 uses Webpack 5 under the hood. V11 is looking insanely fast (I suspect they replaced Babel with esbuild, and did some witchery): https://twitter.com/shuding_/status/1378086219708473344 https://twitter.com/shuding_/status/1378086219708473344. So yeah, slow performance with Webpack is definitely caused by a bad set of loaders/plugins. Eject a CRA app and you'll see a monster coming out.