Programming

17383 readers

430 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

48 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

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Yes. You can have reasonable load times using JS with no bundler. There are some notes though:

JSX isn't JavaScript, you will need to process these files (note: You can write React fairly reasonably without JSX).
TypeScript won't work because it isn't JavaScript. I would only want to use raw JavaScript on the most basic of projects.
A bundler/compressor is still going to reduce load times. Especially if you like lots of small files.
Caching will be a nightmare if you aren't doing version-based naming.