trunk VS webpack

Note that Leptos uses Trunk to serve the client side application. Trunk is a zero-config Wasm web application bundler for Rust.

I've been using Rust and WASM for my latest front-end project, and I think this setup is a viable alternative to commonly used JS frameworks for those willing to put in some effort to ramp up on new technology. Addressing the concerns from the article:

"No universal import system" - Rust has it's own module system and Cargo is used for managing dependencies, no need to worry about different module systems.

"Layers of minification, uglification, and transpilation." Just compile Rust to WASM file for the browser, same as using any other compile target.

"Wildly different environments." Something that you'll still need to deal with. Some runtime dependencies are system-specific (code running on the browser usually needs access to Web APIs, and JavaScript, code running on the server can't access WebAPIs but can access the system clock and filesystem. Sometimes separate libraries or separate runtime configs are needed (e.g. configurable time source)

"Overemphasis on file structure." Not a problem for imports, but you may still have file structure dependencies things like CSS, image resources etc.

"Configuration hell." Pretty much non-existent once you have your Rust compiler setup locally.

"Development parity." Just use trunk: https://trunkrs.dev/, to watch, build and serve, config is minimal.

Trunk, the Rust-equivalent of Webpack & Vite, comes with tailwind built-in. You heard that right! You don't even need to install the tailwind CLI via npm or something like that. No more package.json! <3

Can you not use dioxus with "trunk" (https://trunkrs.dev/) ?

Thanks a lot! As I said in an earlier comment, building this allowed me to explore a lot of features of rust like Traits, Dynamic Dispatch, Pattern Matching, Const evaluation, Static variables, etc. and that on top of that trying to figure out how to conveniently port it to WASM was also a nice learning experience. I am currently using trunk as a bundler which ties in neatly with a GitHub action but before that, I tried cargo-run-wasm, which felt a little hacky. So overall a whole lot of learning.

Here here. I don't think programmers - as a group - get to complain about people not learning programming tools while simultaneously making them so unapproachable (especially Linux things).

It's not just the overuse of acronyms. There's also:

* Religious devotion to the CLI despite it having terrible discoverability.

* Really bad naming. Git is probably the worst offender at this, but the whole of Unix is a naming mess. WTF is `usr`? Is that where user files go?

* Generally over-complicated tooling. A good example of this is Node/NPM. So complicated to set up! Contrast it with https://trunkrs.dev/

* Deification of distro packages. No I do not want to spend half of my development time packaging my app for 10 different distros. I guess I'll go with curl | bash then.

* Distain for binary app distribution. I'm looking at you glibc.

I used Notan for drawing the game board in combination with the excellent egui for adding UI elements. It was surprisingly easy to bring it to web with Trunk.

Hi, the author of MailCrab here :-) Yew is nice, especially if you enjoy writing Rust. However, it definitely takes more time and dedication than writing a frontend in React, Vue etc. Yew and the surrounding ecosystem keeps improving, and it is way more usable than when I first tried it. The tooling I used (Trunk https://trunkrs.dev/) is very minimal with respect to the number of features compared to many of the popular web-bundlers (Webpack etc.) but it works well for most simple use-cases.

Yew is way way nicer in that regard because it uses Trunk which is very excellent and you don't have to deal with any of that really. Just trunk serve and away you go. Plus you get the advantage of not having to deal with Javascript. Typescript is nice, but it's no Rust.

The alternative to wasm-pack is trunk. I've never used it, so I can't tell you how good it is.

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.

NPM packages include a wide range of tools such as frameworks like Express or React, libraries like jQuery, and task runners such as Gulp, and Webpack.