3 ms·

>The Vite implementation is still using the default, Babel-based React plugin. What do you mean "still"? Everyone setting up Vite is supposed to NOT use the de

>The Vite implementation is still using the default, Babel-based React plugin. What do you mean "still"? Everyone setting up Vite is supposed to NOT use the default configuration?

tommiegannert 4y ago
The argument is that the Turbopack run had favorable non-default settings while the Vite run did not. Remember the context of your quote: > After reading the post and benchmark code, here are a few key takeaways: 1. The Vite implementation is still using the default, Babel-based React plugin. I.e. the "still", refers to the config used in Vercel's original benchmark. Since they had tweaked the Turbopack React config, yes, this is noteworthy. Whether this was ignorance about Vite (i.e. making a straw-man argument) or malice, we don't know. Since Vercel did publish their config, assuming ignorance is enough for me. My own conclusion was that defaults are tradeoffs, and that tweaking them can improve some aspect (performance) while negatively affecting another (disk space): >> The reason Vite currently defaults to Babel was a trade-off between install size and practicality. SWC's install size is quite heavy (58MB in node_modules whereas Vite itself is only 19MB), and many users still relied on Babel for other transforms, so a Babel pass was somewhat inevitable for them. However, that may change in the future.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  > Since they had tweaked the Turbopack React config, yes, this is noteworthy. Did they? My understanding is, that Turbopack uses SWC by default. So without at least a confirmed intent to change the default on Vite’s part, I feel like that choice is valid (though it should be explicitly mentioned).
  - tommiegannert 4y ago
    The tweaking/optimization they did was about the RSC vs not, which Evan says drastically changes the outcome, the same way switching Vite to SWC would have. I don't think he suggests that Turbopack was tweaked regarding SWC. It looks like they cherry-picked a configuration pair that made Turbopack look better than what you would get if you either just followed defaults/beginner settings for both, or you optimized both.
  - esprehn 4y ago
    Turbopack is alpha, it seems fair to benchmark against an alpha configuration of vite. It sounds like they're considering changing the default, but were uncertain it helped most users today.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rk06 4y ago
Whether they are measuring "default" setup or optimised, both of the frameworks should follow same criteria. Evan's criticism is that By default, Next use RSC(React server components) which is slower for HMR. in the benchmark, they disabled it for getting higher performance. At the same time, they are saying vite should use default setup for "fairness"
AbraKdabra 4y ago
Well you should read the entire thing before commenting, it's clearly explained in the Evan's post.

>The Vite implementation is still using the default, Babel-based React plugin. What do you mean "still"? Everyone setting up Vite is supposed to NOT use the default configuration?

tommiegannert 4y ago

The argument is that the Turbopack run had favorable non-default settings while the Vite run did not. Remember the context of your quote: > After reading the post and benchmark code, here are a few key takeaways: 1. The Vite implementation is still using the default, Babel-based React plugin. I.e. the "still", refers to the config used in Vercel's original benchmark. Since they had tweaked the Turbopack React config, yes, this is noteworthy. Whether this was ignorance about Vite (i.e. making a straw-man argument) or malice, we don't know. Since Vercel did publish their config, assuming ignorance is enough for me. My own conclusion was that defaults are tradeoffs, and that tweaking them can improve some aspect (performance) while negatively affecting another (disk space): >> The reason Vite currently defaults to Babel was a trade-off between install size and practicality. SWC's install size is quite heavy (58MB in node_modules whereas Vite itself is only 19MB), and many users still relied on Babel for other transforms, so a Babel pass was somewhat inevitable for them. However, that may change in the future.

Semaphor 4y ago
> Since they had tweaked the Turbopack React config, yes, this is noteworthy. Did they? My understanding is, that Turbopack uses SWC by default. So without at least a confirmed intent to change the default on Vite’s part, I feel like that choice is valid (though it should be explicitly mentioned).
- tommiegannert 4y ago
  The tweaking/optimization they did was about the RSC vs not, which Evan says drastically changes the outcome, the same way switching Vite to SWC would have. I don't think he suggests that Turbopack was tweaked regarding SWC. It looks like they cherry-picked a configuration pair that made Turbopack look better than what you would get if you either just followed defaults/beginner settings for both, or you optimized both.
- esprehn 4y ago
  Turbopack is alpha, it seems fair to benchmark against an alpha configuration of vite. It sounds like they're considering changing the default, but were uncertain it helped most users today.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rk06 4y ago

Whether they are measuring "default" setup or optimised, both of the frameworks should follow same criteria. Evan's criticism is that By default, Next use RSC(React server components) which is slower for HMR. in the benchmark, they disabled it for getting higher performance. At the same time, they are saying vite should use default setup for "fairness"

AbraKdabra 4y ago

Well you should read the entire thing before commenting, it's clearly explained in the Evan's post.