unpkg VS sucrase

On platform that doesn't support browser extension (such as Google Chrome Android), you can run YouTube Musical Spectrum [1] using one of these bookmarklets:

javascript:import("https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@mfcc64/ytms/script.mjs")

  javascript:import("https://unpkg.com/@mfcc64/ytms/script.mjs")

{ "$schema": "https://unpkg.com/@changesets/[email protected]/schema.json", - "changelog": "@changesets/cli/changelog", + "changelog": ["@changesets/changelog-github", { + "repo": "your-org/your-repo" + }], "commit": false, "fixed": [], "linked": [], "access": "restricted", "baseBranch": "main", "updateInternalDependencies": "patch", "ignore": [] }

CLI downloads minimized versions of htmx and hyperscript (from official and trusted unpkg.com CDN) to the ./static folder and places them as separated

And the controls seem to be made with https://github.com/timmywil/panzoom:

https://unpkg.com/: Seems to just provide the npm entry files straight up. Can’t use.

Thanks. As for the code compilation, that can be tested and seen in https://sucrase.io/

The demo page is only to show how we can transpile JSX in browsers.

Thanks u/OutlandishnessKey953, the playground built with React, Docusaurus(https://docusaurus.io/), CodeMirror(https://codemirror.net/), Sucrase(https://sucrase.io/), etc.

Hi, Sucrase author here.

To be clear, the benchmark in the README does not allow JIT warm-up. The Sucrase numbers would be better if it did. From testing just now (add `warmUp: true` to `benchmarkJest`), Sucrase is a little over 3x faster than swc if you allow warm-up, but it seemed unfair to disregard warm-up for the comparison in the README.

It's certainly fair to debate whether 360k lines of code is a realistic codebase size for the benchmark; the higher-scale the test case, the better Sucrase looks.

> worse it disables esbuild and swc's multi-threading

At some point I'm hoping to update the README benchmark to run all tools in parallel, which should be more convincing despite the added variability: https://github.com/alangpierce/sucrase/issues/730 . In an ideal environment, the results are pretty much the same as a per-core benchmark, but I do expect that Node's parallelism overhead and the JIT warm-up cost across many cores would make Sucrase less competitive than the current numbers.

First, npm i -D sucrase to install sucrase. Now you can do node -r sucrase/register ./index.ts to run TypeScript code directly with Node.

As you might know there are a lot of Javascript bundlers out there, such as webpack, sucrase, parcel, rollup and etc. Bear in mind, not because they have thousands of stars on Github that means they're the best. sometimes new libs are as good as the popular ones but they're still building up their image/popularity in the community. what I bring today is a not sooooo, popular JS bundler called esbuild.

Sucrase JS was 2x the speed of esBuild and 50% faster than SWC last I checked.

Webpack does way more than esbuild, including running a typechecking compiler instead of just transpiling, running compilers able to downlevel emit to ES5 and providing a deep plugin architecture allowing you to hook into any bit you like. But yes, it hasn't been designed with speed in mind - it has been designed with maximum extensibility instead. Its the same reason why Babel is slow compared to sucrase (written in JS, currently faster than SWC and esbuild but doing somewhat less - https://github.com/alangpierce/sucrase)

tsc has in fact been designed with speed in mind (I've been following the project since before it ended up on GitHub). Going beyond 1 order of magnitude performance improvement is highly unlikely.