unofficial-observablehq-compiler VS Babel (Formerly 6to5)

As someone building an in-browser notebook I have a lot of opinions on notebook environments. Notebooks serve different purposes, sometimes the notebook itself is the end-goal because the author is creating an interactive tutorial or explaining a complex concept with a bunch of visualizations. Observable is a fantastic tool for that, and the kind-of-Javascript reactive programming system it is built on is a great fit for that.

Outside of that use-case, I think notebooks are great for the first 20% of the effort that gets 80% of the work done. If it turns out one also needs to do the other 80% of the effort to get the last 20%, it is time to "graduate" away from a notebook. For instance if I am participating in a Kaggle machine learning competition I may train my first models in a Jupyter notebook for quick iteration on ideas, but when I settle onto a more rigid pipeline and infra, I will move to plain Python files that I can test and collaborate on.

This "graduation" from notebook to the "production/serious" environment should be straightforward, which means there shouldn't be too much magic in the notebook without me opting into it. Documentation in my eyes is not so different, I should be able to copy the examples easily into my JS project without knowing specifics of Observable and adapt it to my problem. Saying "don't be lazy and just learn Observable", or "you must learn D3 itself properly to be able to use it anyway" is not helpful. Observable being a closed, walled garden doesn't help: not being able to author notebooks without using their closed source editor is a liability that I can totally understand makes it a non-starter for some companies and individuals.

I think it's ok to plug my own project: It's called Starboard [1] and is truly open source [2]. It's built on different principles: it's hackable, extendable, embeddable, shareable, and easy to check into git (i.e. I try to take what makes the web so great and put that in a notebook environment). You write vanilla JS/ES/Python/HTML/CSS, but you can also import your own more advanced cell types. Here's an example which actually introduces an Observable cell type [3] which is built upon the Observable runtime (which is open source) and an unofficial compiler package [4]. I would be happy for the D3 examples to be expressed in these really-close-to-vanilla JS notebooks, but I can convince the maintainers to do so.

[1]: https://starboard.gg

[2]: https://github.com/gzuidhof/starboard-notebook

[3]: https://starboard.gg/gz/open-source-observablehq-nfwK2VA

[4]: https://github.com/asg017/unofficial-observablehq-compiler

GitHub | Website

node 'node_modules/.bin/jest' '/Users/satparkash/code/test-app/src/A pp.test.tsx' -t 'App' FAIL src/App.test.tsx ● Test suite failed to run SyntaxError: /Users/satparkash/code/test-app/src/App.test.tsx: Support for the experimental syntax 'jsx' isn't currently enabled (6:12): 4 | describe('App', () => { 5 | it('should work as expected', () => { > 6 | render(); | ^ 7 | }); 8 | }); 9 | Add @babel/preset-react (https://github.com/babel/babel/tree/main/packages/babel-preset-react) to the 'presets' section of your Babel config to enable transformation. If you want to leave it as-is, add @babel/plugin-syntax-jsx (https://github.com/babel/babel/tree/main/packages/babel-plugin-syntax-jsx) to the 'plugins' section to enable parsing. Test Suites: 1 failed, 1 total Tests: 0 total Snapshots: 0 total Time: 0.278 s Ran all test suites matching /\/Users\/satparkash\/code\/test-app\/src\/App.test.tsx/i with tests matching "App".

Webpack (Babel) - https://babel.dev/

I do appreciate your transparency, though I disagree with the sentiment that I’m arguing from a position of bad faith.

It’s a self-evident fact that the Babel team has not shown a moment of interest in lowering their role in the JavaScript ecosystem to anything short of kingmakers. Have a gander at their GitHub README and what do we see?[1]

- “Babel is a compiler for writing next generation JavaScript.” Indefinitely.

- Over a dozen sponsor logos. An embarrassment of riches.

- A literal audio recording of a song in praise of the project.

The Babel team has a well documented history of their priorities[2], emphasizing the need for a modular approach that has no exit strategy[3]. At best, we have a case of accidental entrenchment and long term dependence on the Babel brewing as early as 2017![4]

Compare this infinite circus to the humble but popular Normalize.css, which has the express purpose to stop existing.[5]

If the Babel team wants to raise some money, they can start by putting a plan together that would codify an exit strategy. It’s certainly more noble than their current plan of barnacling on to every NPM package…

- [1] https://github.com/babel/babel

- [2] https://github.com/babel/notes

- [3] https://github.com/babel/notes/blob/master/2016/2016-07/july...

- [4] https://github.com/babel/notes/blob/master/2017/2017-04/apri...

- [5] https://nicolasgallagher.com/about-normalize-css/

The problem was I had used some new code, Javascript's replaceAll(), that is unsupported by older browsers. And, the setup I have to automatically fix such issues (called babel) is out of date. So, while this problem appears to be resolved there, I hadn't updated that in awhile.

babel-loader(v9.1.0): allows transpiling JavaScript files using Babel and webpack.

created 6 years ago to solve the specific problem of managing the Babel repo packages

https://github.com/babel/babel/discussions/13013 maybe this could help