apollo-client VS sucrase

Actually, it's worse than that. Next has started throwing errors if it statically detects you even _importing_ hooks inside of a React Server Component environment:

- https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/10974

- https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/11167

To the point that Lenz Weber( a maintainer of Apollo Client, and my co-maintainer on Redux Toolkit), is considering resorting to a package that wraps and re-exports all of React's public API just to avoid that static analysis:

- https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/pull/11175

Apollo Client (18k ⭐) -> A comprehensive state management library for JavaScript that enables you to manage both local and remote data with GraphQL. Use it to fetch, cache, and modify application data, all while automatically updating your UI.

This currently doesn't work as expected so I have logged this issue in apollo client repo.

I understand this has something to do with the fact, that SvelteKit expects the client and server code to be completely identical - this has already prompted changes to rxjs and apollo is still pending to be fixed. I understand the reason behind being able to run rxjs and apollo on the server but

There is a long-standing issue with error caching (its absence, that is), which leads to errors being rendered as a loading state on the server side. Therefore, if you're doing SSR, you might want to design your schema in such a way that there are no intentional errors in queries whatsoever. To do so, we can use null values instead of NOT_FOUND errors (see how we essentially treated errors as data here?). Note how nothing stops us from setting the response code to 404 in case of a null value, should we want so.

Lol apollo client too.. saw this issue opened like, immediately after the release https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/10231

There were some caching issues, outlined here https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/6916 to be aware of

If you look at how major backend projects structure their code, it's almost always object-oriented TypeScript.

I submit for the record:

- Apollo Client: https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/blob/main/src...

- Storybook: https://github.com/storybookjs/storybook/blob/next/lib/chann...

- Nest: https://github.com/nestjs/nest/blob/master/packages/core/nes...

- MongoDB Driver: https://github.com/mongodb/node-mongodb-native/blob/main/src...

- Prisma: https://github.com/prisma/prisma/blob/main/packages/engine-c...

[※Alert: The following is a code example using the Apollo Client notation, but the Apollo Client does not support Suspense at this time. Github issue about Suspense support: https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/9627]

Thanks. As for the code compilation, that can be tested and seen in https://sucrase.io/

The demo page is only to show how we can transpile JSX in browsers.

Thanks u/OutlandishnessKey953, the playground built with React, Docusaurus(https://docusaurus.io/), CodeMirror(https://codemirror.net/), Sucrase(https://sucrase.io/), etc.

Hi, Sucrase author here.

To be clear, the benchmark in the README does not allow JIT warm-up. The Sucrase numbers would be better if it did. From testing just now (add `warmUp: true` to `benchmarkJest`), Sucrase is a little over 3x faster than swc if you allow warm-up, but it seemed unfair to disregard warm-up for the comparison in the README.

It's certainly fair to debate whether 360k lines of code is a realistic codebase size for the benchmark; the higher-scale the test case, the better Sucrase looks.

> worse it disables esbuild and swc's multi-threading

At some point I'm hoping to update the README benchmark to run all tools in parallel, which should be more convincing despite the added variability: https://github.com/alangpierce/sucrase/issues/730 . In an ideal environment, the results are pretty much the same as a per-core benchmark, but I do expect that Node's parallelism overhead and the JIT warm-up cost across many cores would make Sucrase less competitive than the current numbers.

First, npm i -D sucrase to install sucrase. Now you can do node -r sucrase/register ./index.ts to run TypeScript code directly with Node.

As you might know there are a lot of Javascript bundlers out there, such as webpack, sucrase, parcel, rollup and etc. Bear in mind, not because they have thousands of stars on Github that means they're the best. sometimes new libs are as good as the popular ones but they're still building up their image/popularity in the community. what I bring today is a not sooooo, popular JS bundler called esbuild.

Sucrase JS was 2x the speed of esBuild and 50% faster than SWC last I checked.

Webpack does way more than esbuild, including running a typechecking compiler instead of just transpiling, running compilers able to downlevel emit to ES5 and providing a deep plugin architecture allowing you to hook into any bit you like. But yes, it hasn't been designed with speed in mind - it has been designed with maximum extensibility instead. Its the same reason why Babel is slow compared to sucrase (written in JS, currently faster than SWC and esbuild but doing somewhat less - https://github.com/alangpierce/sucrase)

tsc has in fact been designed with speed in mind (I've been following the project since before it ended up on GitHub). Going beyond 1 order of magnitude performance improvement is highly unlikely.