import-maps VS webpack

Long time huge fan of JS. I appreciate your calling out the multi-paradigm aspect; having these first class functions & prototype based inheritance has been so flexible.

TC39 has done a great job shaping the language over the years. New capabilities are usually well thought out & integrate well. Async await has been amazing.

The one major miss that makes me so sad and frustrated is modules; js has gotten better everywhere except it's near requirement for build tooling. Being able to throw some scripts on a page and go is still an unparalleled experience in the world, is so direct & tactile an experience. EcmaScript Modules was supposed to improve things, help get us back, but imports using url specifiers made the whole thing non-modular, was a miss. We're still tangled & torn. Import-maps has finally fixed but it's no where near as straightforward, and it still doesn't work in workers, which leaves us infuriatingly shirt of where the past was. https://github.com/WICG/import-maps/issues/2

makes sure your app is getting the download it expects. Adoption is probably pretty minimal though. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...

I think the big thing making this unlikely though is that very few folks use cdns these days. We designed ESM as a module system for the language, but then took a good fraction of a decade to build import-maps, to let us actually use modules in a modular way. Good news, we can finally use modules modularly! https://caniuse.com/import-maps

Bad news? Oh import-maps only works for the simplest case. Doesn't work in webworkers/service workers. https://github.com/WICG/import-maps/issues/2

The point is that single page apps almost always are bundled together, as using CDNs hasn't even been technically possible.

Also, CDNs are kind of somewhat pointless, now that http caches are partitioned by origin (for security reasons). They might have better anycast infrastructure to get the content out faster, but without the caching there's no inherent advantage. The user will download the same jquery file again in each site they go to, no already having it cached anymore. Bah humbug!

https://github.com/WICG/import-maps/issues/2

Bare specifiers has been the tragedy of ESM. Nice module syntax... that is utterly u deoyable & which has had to have awful de-modularizing specifiers hard-coded into each file to make it work. Abominable sin to introduce "modules" to JS/es2015 then spend a decade dragging everyone along with no story for how to have modular modules.

Import-maps are like "here" to fix this on the web... finally... except they only are shipping to the happiest sunniest easiest case, with Web Workers being totally shit out of luck in spite of some very simple straightforward suggested paths forward. https://github.com/WICG/import-maps/issues/2

I think Deno is making pretty good tradeoffs along the way here. This looks like package.json at surface level, but there is a nightmare of complexity under the surface. Typescript, ESM, cjs all have various pressures they create & in Node it's just incredibly tight & tense dealing with packaging, where-as Deno's happy path of Typescript first does not slowly tatters one over time. It really has been super pleasant being free of the previous world, and having something much more web-platform centric, more intented, with less assembly & less building, and more doing the actual coding.

I really hope import-maps eventually get broader support. Maybe this long-dwelling webworker issue should be brought up with WinterCG.

Import maps proposal

The concept of Import Maps was born in 2018 and made its long way until it was declared a new web standard implemented by Chrome in 2021 and some other browsers.

For package managers, you can use something like import maps to let the user specify which path points to what package, and resolve it properly.

Huh. I was about to complain that this breaks with web standards, but apparently it's being proposed as a standard feature: https://github.com/WICG/import-maps

Interesting!

There are various tools available that manage the size of bundled assets. We are going to use the example of a popular and widely used bundler named Webpack, and practically look at many of the optimization techniques it offers.

Homepage: https://webpack.js.org/

Click "Start Test." WebPageTest generates a comprehensive report with details about the loading process, including time to first byte (TTFB), page load time, and visual progress. ### Setting Benchmarks with Lighthouse Start with Lighthouse audits to maximize the performance of your React application. Evaluate Lighthouse's scores and suggestions with careful consideration. Next, set benchmarks that are in line with industry norms or customized to meet your unique performance goals. Lastly, pay close attention to the places in your application where it needs work. You can improve your React application's effectiveness by carefully following these procedures, which will guarantee that it satisfies the required performance requirements. ### Analyzing Performance Results with WebPageTest In order to fully evaluate your webpage's performance, launch WebPageTest with a variety of systems, simulating a variety of user scenarios. Examine the waterfall chart carefully to identify loading patterns and bottlenecks, which are essential for improving the user experience. To see the page's rendering process over time and do a thorough examination, use filmstrip views. To effectively assess performance, pay special attention to measures such as time to first byte (TTFB), start render time, and fully loaded time. Also, a better understanding of performance variances is made possible by comparing findings across various test designs, which helps make well-informed recommendations for improving webpage responsiveness and efficiency. ## Impact of third-party libraries on React app performance Third-party library integration can speed up development while improving functionality in our React application. It's crucial to consider the possible effects on performance, though. Because heavy or poorly optimized libraries might negatively impact the speed and usability of our application. ### Bundle Size Look at the distribution file sizes related to the library, and use tools such as Bundlephobia or Webpack Bundle Analyzer to fully evaluate their impact on your bundle size. This thorough analysis enables you to make well-informed decisions about whether to include the library, making sure that its contribution minimizes superfluous bulk in your application's codebase and is in line with your optimization goals. ### Network Requests Analyze how the third-party library affects network requests to maximize performance. Reduce the number of requests made overall by minimizing external dependencies. This will enhance the user experience and loading speeds. Select appropriate libraries, maximize asset delivery, and leverage code splitting to load components asynchronously. You may improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of your application and provide users with a better experience by cutting down on pointless network queries. ### Execution Time Examine the library's code for any possible performance problems or bottlenecks in order to analyze the runtime performance of the library. Look for places where the code may execute slowly or inefficiently. You may ensure smoother operation inside your application by identifying and addressing any areas of the library's implementation that may be impeding ideal performance by doing a comprehensive assessment. ### Code Splitting for Third-Party Libraries Implementing code splitting is an effective strategy to load third-party libraries only when they are required, reducing the initial page load time. Use dynamic imports to load the library lazily:

Thanks for the thorough answer!

I confess I wasn't thinking about a particular build tool. My recent experience has been with Vite, where I took a similar approach to what you describe, but haven't had to dig deep into bundle performance because that's not a bottleneck for our application. The last time I did deeper work on the subject was years ago with Webpack.

I thought Webpack at least did dead-code elimination before splitting things into chunks. If I'm reading this random GitHub issue[1] right (and the asker is also right), Webpack does partially behave as I expected, but the pre-chunking optimization pass occurs before things like constant expression evaluation.

[1] https://github.com/webpack/webpack/issues/16672

Webpack is a powerful and widely-used module bundler for JavaScript applications. It’s known for its flexibility and extensive plugin system, making it a popular tool in complex web development projects.

Thats all about Webpack Basic, there are lots of feature of webpack, You can check here: https://webpack.js.org/

Many web pages use CSS and JavaScript files to handle various features and styles. Each file, however, requires a separate HTTP request, which can slow down page loading. Concatenation comes into play here. It involves combining multiple CSS or JavaScript files into a single file. As a result, pages load faster, reducing the time spent requesting individual files. Gulp, Grunt, and Webpack are some of the tools that can assist you in speeding up the concatenation process. They enable seamless merging of many files during development, ensuring deployment readiness.

Once you build a simple Vite backend integration, try not to complicate Vite's configuration unless you absolutely must. Vite has become one of the most popular bundlers in the frontend space, but it wasn't the first and it certainly won't be the last. In my 7 years of building for the web, I've used Grunt, Gulp, Webpack, esbuild, and Parcel. Snowpack and Rome came-and-went before I ever had a chance to try them. Bun is vying for the spot of The New Hotness in bundling, Rome has been forked into Biome, and Vercel is building a Rust-based Webpack alternative.

Webpack is a module bundler, the main purpose of which is to bundle JavaScript files to make them usable in a browser.