Option to use a faster transpile/bundle engine? #943

Activity

1. developit commented on Jun 6, 2022

   

   developit

   on Jun 6, 2022

   Owner

   More actions

   This would be nice, though both of those options would dramatically increase the on-disk size of Microbundle. Perhaps we could move to ESBuild at the same time as we ship a precompiled version of Microbundle, so the package would be a single 1mb JS file and a ~10mb esbuild dep for the given platform.

   👍React with 👍2Reacted by Evan Jacobs and Ionut Stoica
2. quantizor commented on Jun 9, 2022

   

   quantizor

   on Jun 9, 2022

   Author

   More actions

   @developit yeah that would definitely work!
3. mmkal commented on Jul 17, 2022

   

   mmkal

   on Jul 17, 2022

   More actions

   Hey @probablyup how are you!!

   I don't know much about SWC except as a happy end user, but I just opened #975 as a PoC - a way to effectively make @swc/core an optional peer dependency. All it adds is a single rollup plugin as a dependency, and only "activates" it when the end user has @swc/core installed.

   I thought this might be an easier to incrementally adopt, lighter weight approach than shipping a whole different precompiled version of Microbundle. Also it'd be opt in, so people who are reliant on the current babel-based version of this library can keep using it until swc+microbundle has full feature parity. Some more details in the PR, @developit would be great to get your thoughts, I'd love to see something like this in microbundle!

   ❤️React with ❤️1Reacted by Evan Jacobs

   🚀React with 🚀1Reacted by Evan Jacobs