5 ms·
This is in no way a counter-argument to the parent post. Parent talks purely about software while you're talking about the author of the software.
by endorphine 4y ago
This is in no way a counter-argument to the parent post.
Parent talks purely about software while you're talking about the author of the software.
- Kiro 4y agoIt's not "just another packer" in this context and calling it a successor is not "just more marketing".
- rk06 4y agoby that logic, deno is successor to node
- endorphine 4y agoIt's clearly just another packer, assuming you judge what the program is by what the program does. Hard disagree about the marketing part as well. For something to classify as a successor to something else, it should at least provide feature parity for the core features of that something else (in this case extensibility).
- Kiro 4y agoSo I guess everything is "just another X" and nothing matters. That definition of "successor" would make 99% of all things people usually call successors ineligible to be called as such.
- piskerpan 4y agoTurbopack only shares the original author and the general purpose. Unless they call it "Webpack 7" or deprecate Webpack, it's not the successor. It's as much a successor as Deno is to Node.