recursive-proxy-mock VS vite

Let's take a specific example. One of my libraries recursive-proxy-mock is bundled with Rollup. If you take a look at dist/cjs/index.js you can see there is one big file with everything in it, all bundled together. There are named exports for each thing. This can easily have unused code eliminated either via tree shaking or dead code elimination. I've never made a distinction as to which applies in which scenario since both should always be used together. But I guess my point is, a bundled library doesn't need to have any special format which would require a bundlers help to drop dead code.

If you want to check out my build config for my library that sounds very similar in architecture to yours, feel free: https://github.com/CreativeTechGuy/recursive-proxy-mock

Take a look at the recursive-proxy-mock library. The ability to create an object where every property or function "exists" with infinite depth is a really powerful primitive. Not just for providing mock implementations to complex objects for testing, but also for the ability to store and replay operations on another object in the future.

If you are just looking for a TS library config (not related to react) then here's a good example I can share: https://github.com/CreativeTechGuy/recursive-proxy-mock/blob/main/rollup.config.js

As of this writing, initializing a Hattip project requires some manual commands. However, keep in mind that a zero-config development environment based on Vite is in the works.

import { defineConfig } from 'vite' import react from '@vitejs/plugin-react' // https://vitejs.dev/config/ export default defineConfig({ plugins: [react()], server: { port: 4200, } })

For the frontend of "I Disappear," I leverage the automated build & deploy system provided by Netlify, which seamlessly integrates with Vite. This setup ensures that every deployment is optimized for performance, utilizing Vite’s modern build tools to enhance speed and efficiency.

Given our team's collective proficiency within the React ecosystem, we decided to leverage this expertise for our project. Initially, we contemplated utilizing Next.js; however, due to the limited practical experience with this technology among key engineers and the pressing timeline to develop the first prototype, we opted for a Single Page Application(SPA) approach. For bundling, we selected Vite, primarily due to its super fast build times, simplicity of configuration, and potential for a nearly seamless transition to server-side rendering.

We are continuing to add new project templates for various types of projects, and we've recently created one for the infamous combination of React with Vite tooling.

Vite focuses on providing an extremely fast development server and workflow speed in web development. It uses its own ES module imports during development, speeding up the startup time.

Vite and Next.js are both top 5 modern development framework right now. They are both great depending on your use case so we’ll discuss 4 areas: Architecture, main features, developer experience and production readiness. After learning about these we’ll have a better idea of which one is best for your project.

import { defineConfig } from 'vite' import react from '@vitejs/plugin-react-swc' import path from 'path' // https://vitejs.dev/config/ export default defineConfig({ plugins: [react()], server: { port: 3000 }, css: { devSourcemap: true }, resolve: { alias: { '~': path.resolve(__dirname, './src') } } })

I am currently utilizing Vite:

Homepage: https://vitejs.dev/