minification-benchmarks VS fjb

Minifiers are used to reduce the size of the bundle. They can remove unused code, shorten expressions, and so on. And Now there are already several popular minifiers, and they continue to appear: more familiar ones - written in JavaScript - Terser and UglifyJS, even Babel has its own version of the minifier, there are also more modern SWC (written in Rust) and ESBuild (written in Go), and a bunch of other lesser-known minifiers. And I recommend you to look at this repository. It contains up-to-date test results of various popular minifiers.

This minify/gzip size effect is a well known quirk to developers of javascript minifiers. The minifier's symbol mangling algorithm often has a more pronounced effect than does advanced AST optimization.

This website has real life data on the matter for popular libraries:

* https://github.com/privatenumber/minification-benchmarks

Compare the trophies indicating smallest size for Minified versus Minzipped (gzip). Generally the smallest minified size yields the smallest minified+gzip size, but there are some notable anomolies outside the range of statistical noise. It is not practical for a javascript minifier to take a compression algorithm into account - it would blow up the minify timings exponentially.

It would be helpful to see how Bun's minifier compares to the others with popular libraries:

https://github.com/privatenumber/minification-benchmarks

JavaScript

There are many minifiers such as terser and uglify. But, because minifying also require to parse the JS, it is actually possible to use esbuild and SWC to minify the code. Here's a benchmark of the main minifiers.

Here's a comparison showing the major players with comparable stats at first glance. https://github.com/privatenumber/minification-benchmarks

https://esbuild.github.io/ https://github.com/privatenumber/minification-benchmarks

privatenumber/minification-benchmarks – JS minification benchmarks: babel-minify, esbuild, terser, uglify-js

esbuild is the current darling leading the pack, but there are also various other projects in the space (swc[0] is written in Rust, fjb[1] is written in C, bun[2] is written in zig, leveraging JavascriptCore's engine).

The most significant performance-oriented effort in this space still leveraging JS that I know of is kataw[3], and while that's quite fast compared to babel, it's still within an order of magnitude from babel. Kataw itself is a CST-based implementation that was created to outperform seafox (a AST-based parser by the same developer).

Babel gained popularity due to the crazy amount of churn in grammar over the past few years, but more and more I think the dust is settling, and flexibility is no longer the name of the game, making an AST-based implementation less appealing. The Rome team must be feeling the heat if the data structure design choices are being informed by performance. I highly doubt someone will be able to compete in performance using a JS implementation in today's landscape.

[0] https://github.com/swc-project/swc

[1] https://github.com/sebbekarlsson/fjb

[2] https://bun.sh/

[3] https://github.com/kataw/kataw

Nice write-up. I have explored different repo strategies quite a bit myself in the course of a few efforts that I've been involved with. On one, we originally had a monolythic framework and everything the article said about cons is pretty spot on. However, I'll qualify by saying that I think the problems come less because of the nature of monolyths in general and more because of lack of experience with modular design.

We then wrote a new framework using a monorepo approach, with separate packages using Lerna. The problem here was tooling. Dependent builds were not supported and I've had to delete node_modules more times than I'd ever cared to count. The article talks about some github specific problems (namely, the issues list being a hodge-podge of every disparate package). We tried zenhub, it works ok, but it's a hack and it kinda shows. I've seen other projects organize things via tags. Ultimately it comes down to what the team is willing to put up with.

We eventually broke the monorepo out into multi-repos, and while that solved the problem of managing issues, now the problem was that publishing packages + cross-package dependencies meant that development was slower (especially with code reviews, blocking CI tests, etc).

Back to a monorepo using Rush.js (and later Bazel). Rush had similar limitations as Lerna (in particular, no support for dependent tests) and we ditched it soon afterwards. Bazel has a lot of features, but it takes some investment to get the most out of it. I wrote a tool to wrap over it[0] and setup things to meet our requirements.

We tried the "multi-monorepo" approach at one point (really, this is just git submodules), and didn't get very good results. The commands that you need to run are draconian and having to remember to sync things manually all the time is prone to errors. What's worse is that since you're dealing with physically separate repos, you're back to not having good ways to do atomic integration tests across package boundaries. To be fair, I've seen projects use the submodules approach[1] and it could work depending on how stable your APIs are, but for corporate requirements, where things are always in flux, it didn't work out well.

Which brings me to another effort I was involved with more recently: moving all our multi-repo services into a monorepo. The main rationale here is somewhat related to another reason submodules don't really fly: there's a ton of packages being, a lot of stakeholders with various degrees of commit frequency, and reconciling security updates with version drift is a b*tch.

For this effort we also invested into using Bazel. One of the strengths of this tool is how you can specify dependent tasks, for example "if I touch X file, only run the tests that are relevant". This is a big deal, because at 600+ packages, a full CI run consumes dozens of hours worth of compute time. The problem with monorepos comes largely from the sheer scale: bumping something to the next major version requires codemods, and there's always someone doing some crazy thing you never anticipated.

With that said, monorepos are not a panacea. A project from a sibling team is a components library and it uses a single repo approach. This means a single version to manage for the entire set of components. You may object that things are getting bumped even when they don't need to, but it turns out this is actually very well received by consumers, because it's far easier to upgrade than having to figure out the changelog of dozens of separate packages.

I used a single repo monolyth-but-actually-modular setup for my OSS project[2] and that has worked well for me, for similar reasons: people appreciate curation, and since we want to avoid willy-nilly breaking changes, a single all-emcompassing version scheme encourages development to work towards stability rather than features-for-features-sake.

My takeaway is that multi-repos cause a lot of headaches both for framework authorship and for service development, that single repos can be a great poor-mans choice for framework authors, and monorepos - with the appropriate amount of investment in tooling - have good multiplicative potential for complex project clusters. YMMV.

[0] https://github.com/uber-web/jazelle

[1] https://github.com/sebbekarlsson/fjb/tree/master/external

[2] https://mithril.js.org/

I also made some benchmarks, including my own bundler:

https://github.com/sebbekarlsson/fjb/benchmarks.md

I've added some benchmarks: https://github.com/sebbekarlsson/fjb/blob/master/benchmarks.md