Quoting Pirate Praveen (2020-11-06 11:37:45) > Though with more and more browsers supporting ES6 features natively, > transpiling to ES5 may not be necessary for many packages.
You talk about code where upstream targets ES6. My recommendation is for code where upstream targets ES5. I do not recommend to _introduce_ transpiling where upstream does not. > I don't see the reason for new packages to use uglify-js. When _upstream_ code is either written in ES5 or transpiled to ES5, these are the benefits of using uglify-js 3 instead of terser: * reduce risk of bugs in minification code * reduce risk of migration delays or getting kicked during freeze Let me repeat my recommendation: I recommend to use uglify-js 3 instead of terser, when possible. For code that is written as or transpiled to ES5, better use uglify-js 3 to minify it: Your package then a) gets minified using newest upstream knowledge, and b) reduces risk of getting caught in in a larger package migration. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
-- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
