Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I was just going to comment that it would be interesting to see the size of a run-through with browserify+uglifyify+uglify but looks like there is already a PR for it.

https://github.com/samccone/The-cost-of-transpiling-es2015-i...



I'm new to the whole webpack / browserify / etc. stuff, but this seems like a supremely weird build pipeline to me.

> When using uglifyify you should generally also use Uglify, to achieve the smallest output. Uglifyify provides an additional optimization when used with Uglify, but does not provide all of the optimization that using Uglify on its own does, so it's not a replacement.

Why doesn't Uglify just do all the work and not require a separate component to do extra optimisation? Or is the extra optimisation specifically tailored to browserify?


The current state of javascript is to employ 40 tools for build process and 2000 modules to build your product.


I just ran that PR and this is what it got:

-----------------------------------------

stat -f%z src/dist/bundle.js

15757

gzip -c src/dist/bundle.js | wc -c

4270

-----------------------------------------

So still not quite as small as the rollup, closure, or webpack




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: