On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:48 PM Jamie <[email protected]> wrote: > I think having an inline module format would help make the composition of > build tools much easier. > > Right now we have an ecosystem where everyone builds libraries into > bundles using tools like Parcel, Rollup, Browserify, and Webpack. These > create output which get recursively pulled into similar bundles. > > The problem is that the operation of merging files into bundles destroys > static information we have with individual files. So optimizing compilers > have difficulty doing code elimination (often called "tree shaking" in the > community) across bundles. > > If we had a definition format for these bundlers to compile to which > didn't destroy all the static information we have in separate files, we > could build better optimizing compilers around them. > > I would hope that such a format would also allow engines to optimize the > parsing of these inline modules (deferring most of the work until modules > are actually loaded). > > There is other efforts in a similar space such was the webpackage format: > https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainer.md >
What benefits might an inline module proposal have over/in-conjunction-with the webpackage format proposal?
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
