editorconfig-vim VS sucrase

These are tools that you need to add. But the most elemental code formatting is not here, it is in the widely supported .editorconfig file.

Hello,

Maybe you should check this project:

https://editorconfig.org/

Regards,

editorconfigchecker. A linter that checks files for compliance with editorconfig rules. Another linter that helps maintain consistency in the format of all files.

Oh, yeah, we had that issue too and solved it pretty successfully with `.editorconfig` (shareable between VScode and IntelliJ, https://editorconfig.org/) combined with `prettier`.

Each IDE is configured to:

- Not reformat code on its own

- Ignore whitespace

- Run `prettier` as a pre-commit hook

Those settings are saved to `.editorconfig` where possible, or to each IDE's repo-specific folder (e.g. `.idea`).

Then in theory each developer can use whatever IDE they want, whatever whitespace settings they want (tabs vs spaces), and the end code committed to the repo is still the same.

I am aware of .editorconfig, and one day that may be the correct answer but the specification does not support every element of the styles of both oss and css.

Does this mean I can completely get rid of this plugin?: https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-vim

[1] https://editorconfig.org

I dunno who downvoted your question, but I believe you can use .editorconfig to set that up for you.

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.