simpatico VS compression-dictionary-transport

>Does this mean that in theory i could skip the build/bundling step entirely?

You can but you must write your app in something the browser understands (js not ts, css not sass etc) and use native modules. For example, here is the test harness for a custom module, written in pure html with no build step: https://github.com/javajosh/simpatico/blob/master/combine2.h.... Here is a more complex (and much older) example from Crockford: https://www.jslint.com/

And yes, the experience developing this way is quite nice!

*>...use types [at] runtime..."

Two things. First, TS conceives of itself as having no runtime component. If it did, I think people (including the TS devs) would be more confused.

Second, I'd say rather we need a runtime type system. In fact I've tried my hand at writing one in the most minimalist way possible, and have been working on it recently [1]. The type system is explicit in that a type is a JSON like object, similar to JSON schema, but 100x less code.

[1] https://github.com/javajosh/simpatico/blob/master/friendly.h... This is effectively the test harness for the module.

> Dictionary entries (or at least the metadata) should be cleared any time cookies are cleared.

So it seems it should not get you anything you cannot already do with cookies.

https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport?tab...

Talked about here:

https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport

There's a spec up for custom dictionary support across the web. https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport

This was one of the major blockers that iirc Mozilla threw in the way of zstd compression support: they said zstd with a standardly accepted dictionary would be too particular & wanted more. With this spec maybe Moz will accept zstd as a web compression standard.

Here here. Today, bundlers may get you to first page load faster. But if a user comes back and you've shipped two small fixes, all those extra wins you get from compressing a bunch files at once fly out the window & you're deep in the red. If you have users that return to your site, and your site is actively developed, bundling is probably a bad tradeoff.

We see similar fixedness in the field all over the place: people freaking love small Docker image sizes & will spend forever making it smaller. But my gosh the number of engineers I've seen fixate on total download size for an image, & ignore everything else, is vast. Same story, but server side: my interest is in the download size for what v1.0.1 of the Docker container looks like once we already have v1.0.0 already shipped. Once we start to consider what the ongoing experience is, rather than just the first time easy-to-judge metric, the pictures all look very different.

Then there's the other thing. The performance reasons for bundling are being eaten away. Preload & Early Hints are both here today & both offer really good tools to greatly streamline asset loading & claw back a lot of turf, and work hand-in-glove with import-maps. The remaining thing everyone points out is that a large bundle compresses better (but again at the cost of making incremental updates bad). The spec is in progress, but compression-dictionary-transport could potentially obliterate that advantage, either make it a non-factor, or perhaps even a disadvantage for large bundles (as one could use a set of dictionaries & go discover which of your handful of dictionaries best compress the code). These dictionaries would again be first-load hit, but could then be used again and again by users, to great effect again for incremental changes. https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport

Bundles are such an ugly stain on the web, such an awful hack that betrays the web's better resourceful nature. Thankfully we're finally making real strides against this opaque awful blob we've foisted upon this world. And we can start to undo not just the ugliness, but the terrible performance pains we've created by bundling so much togther.