sorry that came out wrong, but i'm generally uncomfortable with the dearth of reliable/correct es6+ compliant minifiers. and i feel its an industry-concern which slows product-development.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:35 PM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, exactly. minification-tooling is a real-concern for any > consumer-facing javascript-product, and not all of them want to rely on > babel. > > Are you arguing all new javascript-products should be coerced to integrate > with babel, because it has a monopoly on such critical-tooling? > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:28 PM Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So effectively, you're arguing that stagnant tools should hold back >> evolution of the language, even when non-stagnant alternatives exist? >> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 3:26 PM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Can you expand on what you mean by this, or provide an example of a >>> > feature that can't be "easily minified”? >>> >>> fat-arrow/destructuring/es6-classes comes to mind. if you have legacy >>> build-chain that doesn't use babel or terser, is it worth the effort to >>> retool the minifier to support these syntaxes so you can use it? also any >>> feature which introduce new symbol/symbol-combo which requires re-auditing >>> minifier's regexp-detection (private-fields, optional-chaining, etc.). >>> >>> there’s also the argument using babel in minification-toolchain defeats >>> the purpose of reducing code-size. >>> >>> > On 12 Feb 2019, at 4:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:44 AM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> i think there’s an industry-painpoint (at least from my experience), >>> of resistance adopting es6+ features because legacy-toolchains cannot be >>> easily retooled to minify them. >>> >> >>> >> i’m not sure the best way to address this problem? i favor requiring >>> 2 independent minifiers to be able to handle a stage3-proposal before >>> advancement (indicating retooling is feasible), but that may be >>> overly-restrictive to some folks. >>> > >>> > Can you expand on what you mean by this, or provide an example of a >>> > feature that can't be "easily minified"? >>> > >>> > ~TJ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
