Programming

17450 readers

67 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

Are we ready for javascript without a build step on the front end in 2023? (lemmy.fbmac.net)

submitted 1 year ago by fbmac@lemmy.fbmac.net to c/programming@programming.dev

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

On the current typescript / anti-typescript internet drama I saw someone mention javascript without a build step.

Do you think we're already there?

Last time I attempted it:

there were too many libraries I couldn't import
JSX (using babel) had a warning saying you shouldn't do it in the browser for production
there was some advice against not using a bundler, because several requests for different .js files is slower and bigger than a bundled package

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Sure, all I'm saying is every layer has major cost, and JS development has a lot of layers. Corporate websites can financially and time-wise afford that complexity cost when the benefits are scaled across millions of users.

But its a problem when the first result of YouTube tutorials for a one page To-do app uses a pipeline as conceptually* deep as:

name resolution (node modules and unpinned versions)
then compiling uncompiled dependencies
then Vue/Sevlte to TS or JS + source maps
then TSX to TS
then TS + config options + feature flags to JS+source map
then JS transpile CommonJS to ES imports
then JS through babel for polyfills (and more source maps)
then JS through tree shaking
then JS through an uglifier (and more source maps)
then combine JS into one file of JS (more source maps)
then hydration for SSR
then start a hot reloading dev server
then user can render

I think OP is asking if it's possible for a good (no jQuery, no global varnames, etc) Todo app to work without needing all that.

[–] Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And the simple answer is no. You can remove a layer here and there, but this is what the modern dev environment looks like.

I mean sure you can implement all that yourself and carry all the extra cognitive load, but it is not productive to even skip babel or so. There is no point, but the challenge.

Of course it is a bit more complicated to pick the right tools and you don't have to use everything, but that's a whole different discussion.

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I would disagree.

There's more to software than big corporate websites or massive FOSS projects. I've made tons of little one-html-file sites, like an inflation-adjusted income calculator, a scheduling app I've used every week for 4 years, a chemistry converter/calculator for a class I was in, even my resume site is just a single html file. Not only that but most of my published deno modules are nothing more than a main.js, a readme, and a gitignore (no package.json, no node_modules, no install step).

You don't need tests, and a linter, and babel, and tree shaking, and JSX, and typescript, and souce maps just to make a resume site, or an infographic, or a one-off internal dashboard, or a simple blog, or a restraunt menu. Modern ES http imports and modern JS tooling is enough.

load more comments (1 replies)