#WHY USE WEBPACK FOR NON SPA HOW TO#
#WHY USE WEBPACK FOR NON SPA CODE#

Some of them are generic likeР”В«rfs that you can combine with other libraries I think that many different approaches map muchР”В«etter to the diversity of requirements that people have for building modularР”Р‡irst of all, there are lots of css transforms. Webpack has one solution: put everything into the webpack asset graph.Р”В«rowserify has many approaches. With css, but has plenty of extensibility points for different approaches toward Browserify itself does not concern itself So many times people keep claiming that browserify 'doesn't care about css'. Take a few hundred milliseconds at most, similar to webpack. Is very misconfigured, rebuilding with watchify after the first build should To watch and also print out a message when a build is complete. In browserify, you can just do: watchify main.js -o bundle.js -v In webpack lingo this is confusingly called 'incremental compilation' and isР”В«uilt into webpack core with: webpack -watch main.js bundle.js In browserify, you can obtain AMD with deamdify or In webpack, AMD 'just works' when the files that webpack needs are hosted in the

This creates a file bundle.js.map that bundle.js will point at as an This can be done in browserify with an external tool,Р”В®xorcist: browserify -debug main.js | exorcist bundle.js.map > bundle.js Which implicitly creates an external source map file that you will need toР”В¬onfigure to be serve from the appropriate web root. In webpack, separate source maps appear with: webpack -devtool eval main.js bundle.js Inline source maps are the default in browserify because they require noР”Р„dditional configuration about how or where to serve up extra static assets.

Whereas in browserify you would do: browserify -debug main.js > bundle.js In webpack you can do: webpack -devtool inline-source-map main.js bundle.js Handily, transforms can also be configured from both In browserify,Р”Р‡ile extensions are handled at the individual application and transform levelР”В«ecause transformations might apply to the same file extensions in different Trying to make a central registry of file extensions to loaders. Webpack loaders also care about file extensions to an unusual degree and are I don't think this idea will pan out at scale the way that it already has Responsible for all the loader transformations across the entire dependency Webpack takes the opposite opinion: that application developers should be

#WHY USE WEBPACK FOR NON SPA CODE#

Those packages know best what transformations are necessary to make the code These transforms are applied automaticallyР”Р„nd transparently with the reasoning that the people who wrote the code for Locally at the package level, whereas loaders in webpack are global.Р”Р„dditionally in browserify-land, any package may have a package.json that

#WHY USE WEBPACK FOR NON SPA HOW TO#

InР”В«rowserify-land, decisions about how to transform source code are made very This is because those modules were writtenР”В«y other folks with different opinions about how to structure their projects. New ('common.js')Р”В«rowserify -t coffeeify ffee > bundle.jsР”В«ut this transform would only apply to local files, not to modules installed Webpack you can edit the webpack config with: var webpack = require('webpack') To split up common assets from entry points x.js and y.js into bundlesР”В«undle/x.js and bundle/y.js with a common bundle bundle/common.js, in In both cases for browserify and webpack you will end up with 2 tags If you want to, you can still split up bundles using -x and -r, but forР”В¬reating multi-page bundles, it's pretty easy to automate that away with However, this idea was quickly taken up in browserify using the plugin API into Webpack, to its credit, provided some useful ideas about how to handle splittingР”В«undles up into multiple pages automatically. Hopefully this document will help somewhat with finding options to evaluate. Trade-offs that you need, but you might need to put in more work to evaluate the Might be several different ways of doing that task to serve different use-cases.Р”Вiversity means that you can choose an approach that more closely matches the

I think that longer-term, separability has more benefits from a maintenance andР”В®xperimentation perspective, but that doesn't mean that you can't do pretty muchР”В®verything webpack can do in the browserify ecosystem. Is more likely to push features out to userland instead. Willing to pull features into its core to ease discoverability while browserify Generally speaking, most of this confusion stems from how webpack is more There's been a strange explosion in misinformation about browserify recently,

Why use webpack for non spa