4 ms·

I've used Trunk for about a year on an app I'm slowly building and it's worked well. I would vouch for it. It's a little light on maintainers. They shipped one

I've used Trunk for about a year on an app I'm slowly building and it's worked well. I would vouch for it. It's a little light on maintainers. They shipped one version that was broken for my use case and it took maybe a week or two for things to get corrected, but was an innocent enough mistake and they were responsive on Discord. Other than that, no issues, works exactly like you'd expect.

ModernMech 2y ago
Maybe you can help me understand how this differs from wasm-pack?
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  It's significantly easier to configure - as in, I use it without any configuration whatsoever in my current project. Just drop an html file in your crate and run `trunk serve`.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
smodo 2y ago
Same here, have used trunk for over year and find it very easy to work with. I use it with egui and it has made distribution of my stuff really easy.
bippihippi1 2y ago
+1 for trunk. In comparison with Vite, webpack, etc it's not as mature. Fewer plugins and stuff, but for the use cases it supports it's great. I use it to package a static Yew frontend and it works with minimal fuss and has hot-reload for dev too.
- deciduously 2y ago
  I'm curious about "static Yew frontend ". If your content is static, why bother with a React-like tool, let alone one that compiles to wasm? Or have I misunderstood the term used here?
  - eddd-ddde 2y ago
    Static content does not imply non-interactive. Think video games, they can be fully static content yet highly interactive. It is the interactivity aspect of an app that makes it a good use case for something like yew or react. Since it is static, you don't need a server, but you can still benefit from the wasm performance and yew DX.
    - deciduously 2y ago
      Great example, thank you. I had indeed conflated "static" with "non-interactive," and I definitely see how Yew could be a great fit for this sort of content. I appreciate the clarification!

ModernMech 2y ago

Maybe you can help me understand how this differs from wasm-pack?

swiftcoder 2y ago
It's significantly easier to configure - as in, I use it without any configuration whatsoever in my current project. Just drop an html file in your crate and run `trunk serve`.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

smodo 2y ago

Same here, have used trunk for over year and find it very easy to work with. I use it with egui and it has made distribution of my stuff really easy.

bippihippi1 2y ago

+1 for trunk. In comparison with Vite, webpack, etc it's not as mature. Fewer plugins and stuff, but for the use cases it supports it's great. I use it to package a static Yew frontend and it works with minimal fuss and has hot-reload for dev too.

deciduously 2y ago
I'm curious about "static Yew frontend ". If your content is static, why bother with a React-like tool, let alone one that compiles to wasm? Or have I misunderstood the term used here?
- eddd-ddde 2y ago
  Static content does not imply non-interactive. Think video games, they can be fully static content yet highly interactive. It is the interactivity aspect of an app that makes it a good use case for something like yew or react. Since it is static, you don't need a server, but you can still benefit from the wasm performance and yew DX.
  - deciduously 2y ago
    Great example, thank you. I had indeed conflated "static" with "non-interactive," and I definitely see how Yew could be a great fit for this sort of content. I appreciate the clarification!