labelflow VS parcel

It is launch day for us at LabelFlow, the open platform for image labeling, would be great to get your feedback on this major update for us.

We are hosting image datasets on our platform and until recently the stored datasets were relatively small (several hundreds of images, few GB) so we only offered the possibility to export zip files containing images and labels in the COCO or YOLO format. As the average size of the datasets is growing, it's not convenient anymore to export a zip.

SWC in NextJS is still in canary with experimental settings, but it took me 3 lines of code yesterday to make it work on a fairly large app ( https://labelflow.ai ). Hot reload times instantly went from 10s to 1s. Twitter discussion here https://twitter.com/vlecrubier/status/1448371633673187329?s=...

Overall I’m pretty bullish on Rust tooling and integration within the JS/ Wasm ecosystem !

Check labelflow.ai. It's free, the code is published, web UI is super simple and the images do not need to be uploaded on remote servers so you get started in no time. For classification you would press the 1 key if image has hotdog else right key to go to the next image. Not gonna lie, you're going to need a bit of time for 10k images but definitely doable alone on a simple use case like that. To be fully transparent, I work there! Classification features are still in beta they will be released in 2 weeks. Happy labeling!

I’ve used storybook for 4 years in teams of 1-15 devs and I’d say it’s a must have for any serious react app with 3+ full time developers. It has its rough edges sure but the ROI is 10x nonetheless in my experiences.

Advantages

- Testing components in isolation forces some good practices and allows to keep the codebase in check by encouraging good practices (limited coupling of unrelated parts of the codebase

- It’s super productive because it is both a form of unit tests, useful during development of UX in « TDD mode », and a very good documentation of your UI components. It greatly reduces the effort needed for both these aspects.

- For DX, the hot reload is generally faster in storybook than in the App (except if you use vite/snowpack in your app, so far..) because reloading a single component is faster than reloading the whole app and its state. In a large CRA our hot reload could sometimes take up 1min in complex cases, while storybook was taking 3s.

- Coupled with Chromatic (their hosted platform) and its GitHub integration it makes QA and visual regression testing a joy, 10x faster than alternatives, I really recommend that.

- It allows to share/iterate easily your ongoing developments with non-tech people in your organisation at early stage. A very good bridge between Figma and the final UI. A good support during Daily meetings about UI, just shared the deployed story url to ask for feedback.

Drawbacks

- It has its own Webpack config. So if you have a custom Webpack config in your app (don’t do that anyway, unless absolutely necessary) then be prepared to duplicate the customizations in your storybook config

- Global React Contexts needs to be duplicated in your storybook config and, if necessary, configured for individual stories. For example if your signup button changes based on an Auth status stored in a global context, then you will have to use Story.parameters to customize the content of the Auth context.

- We had a couple instances where storybook was the limiting factor for us to embrace some new/fancy tech, like yarn v2 or service worker. However maybe that’s a good litmus test: things that storybook support are state of the art JS and generally safe to use. Things that storybook does not support out of the box will cause you problems with other tools anyway: if it’s not storybook, some other tool like Cypress, Jest, Next, or some browsers will cause you trouble with your “shiny new tech”

- It can be slow to startup. We had a storybook with 300+ complex stories and it took 5min to startup and 10min to build in the CI

- It had some API changes/ migration pains a couple years back. However I think the new API is very good and will last a long time so this is behind.

Overall I definitely advocate to use storybook, especially with Chromatic, the ROI is 10x. If you find yourself limited by it in 2021 despite configuring it, maybe question your own tech stack.

Don’t try to implement your own storybook copycat (we had a colleague develop an alternative https://github.com/remorses/vitro , but i think it was not worth the effort)

If you want to see a state of the art repo in NextJS that uses storybook extensively with some customizations, check https://github.com/Labelflow/labelflow/

As a matter of fact, LabelFlow uses a service worker exactly to avoid sending your data to a server (your data is stored in the local service worker instead). The code of this service worker is there: https://github.com/labelflow/labelflow/blob/main/typescript/web/src/worker/index.ts . You won't find any privacy-defeating stuff in there. It's super simple.

What was then just a landing page is now a product that you can try for free with no login required, the code is also publicly available on GitHub. (https://github.com/Labelflow/labelflow/).

4 months ago we announced Labelflow (https://www.labelflow.ai/), the open image annotation and dataset cleaning platform.

What was then just a landing page is now a product that you can try for free with no login required, the code is also publicly available on GitHub. (https://github.com/Labelflow/labelflow/).

In this first version, we are releasing your most wanted features: a straightforward online image annotation tool. For privacy concerns, your images are never uploaded to our server! You can create bounding boxes, polygons, export labels to COCO format and we added plenty of keyboard shortcuts for productivity!

We’re excited to hear your feedback, tell us what features would make your life easier (https://labelflow.canny.io/feature-requests) and upvote what you would like us to build. Stay tuned, It’s just the beginning of a long story.

Homepage: https://parceljs.org/

In the Changelog Podcast episode referenced above, Dan Abramov alluded to Parcel working on RSC support as well. I couldn’t find much to back up that claim aside from a GitHub issue discussing directives and a social media post by Devon Govett (creator of Parcel), so I can’t say for sure if Parcel is currently a viable option for developing with RSCs.

Parcel 2 emphasizes a zero-configuration approach to bundling web applications. It's a powerful tool that offers a hassle-free developer experience, focusing on simplicity and speed.

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.

Parcel

I’ve tried something similar on the frontend side: I decided to build a UI for Ollama.ai using only HTML, CSS, and JS (Single-Page Application). The goal is to learn something new and have zero runtime dependencies on other projects and NPM modules. Only Node and Parcel.js (https://parceljs.org/) are needed during development for serving files, bundling, etc. The only runtime dependency is a modern browser.

Here's what I have found so far:

- JavaScript (vanilla) is a viable alternative to React.js

Besides Webpack, there are many other popular web bundlers available, such as Parcel, Esbuild, Rollup, and more. They all have their own unique features and strengths, and you should make your decision based on the needs and requirements of your specific project. Please refer to their official websites for details.

In the Node.js ecosystem, bundling is typically handled by third-party tools rather than Node.js itself. Some of the most popular bundlers in the Node.js world include Webpack, Rollup, and Parcel, offering features like code splitting, tree shaking, and hot module replacement.

There are projects attempting to do more things. I've really enjoyed Parcel (https://parceljs.org). But it won't handle things like linting or unit testing, which you may or may not want. Vite is also pretty popular (https://vitejs.dev/), and it has a test runner.

Thing is, most of the problems described in the post aren't related to low-JS front-end libraries like HTMX or alpine. You can write React without a linter, bundler, build tool, unit testing, or linting. But with any of these projects at scale, you start wanting more:

- If you want to write unit tests in JS, you need to choose a test runner (probably Jest or Vitest -- until the built-in node testing module becomes more common).

- If you want linting, you need a linter (probably Eslint). If you want type safety, you need a type checker (probably Typescript).

- If you want to create smaller JS files to ship to production and to automatically handle assets, you need a bundler.

- If you want to use new language features while supporting old browsers, you need polyfills.

- If you want to use all these things together, you need something to bring it together (like Webpack).

So it really depends what you need! You may not need any. But as you can imagine, in many professional projects with multiple developers it's very nice to have unit tests, linting, and type checking :) (And you start caring about end-user performance a lot more, in which case optimizing the shipped bundle is important.)

Take all that, and then compare to a language like Rust, which has most of the "ecosystem stuff" built-in. In Rust, you get the test runner, the linter, dependency manager, type checker, and documentation tool all included. Easy! Thankfully, Rust doesn't have to care about whether users support modern language features (because it compiles down to lower code ahead of time), or whether the binary shipped to the client is optimally organized for downloading immediately over the internet.

It's a problem in JS because A) you have to care about more problems than many other languages since JS needs to load instantly over the wire in a web browser, and B) there is a huge amount of choice and not a lot of standardization in web tools. (And what standardization there is (Node, npm), there are still competitors trying to even further reduce the pain points.)

I think that in ten more years, we'll be in a better place, because there is push back (like this post!) against these problems, which will encourage more tools trying to solve the explosion of tools. Which seems counterintuitive, but these tools were created to solve very real problems. So I see it as a pendulum which has swung too far, but will likely swing back to a more balanced place. And you see that with tools like Vite gaining popularity.

My first challenge here was the migration from vanilla JS to utilizing tools like Parcel and React. React, I was a bit familiar with; however, I had never heard of Parcel.js in my life. Several days were spent troubleshooting why my build process was not working on Netlify before I finally found out that I had to set up my Netlify Build Settings specifically for using a bundler like Parcel.js