Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider moving from Webapck to esbuild for build tool #1618

Open
futurebenmorris opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Consider moving from Webapck to esbuild for build tool #1618

futurebenmorris opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@futurebenmorris
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Webpack build times are slow and config is complex.

Describe the solution you'd like

Consider moving to esbuild to dramatically speed up build times and also unlock usage of tools like Vite and Snowpack in the development toolchain which make the developer experience much nicer.

Describe alternatives you've considered

The following are also alternatives to esbuild that aim to significantly improve bundle build times:

Additional context

I realise this may be quite a significant refactor as dependencies are likely to need updating which may introduce breaking changes. As such, this could become a long term goal if the community thinks it's worth the effort.

@cesar-ibr
Copy link

I consider this could be a huge improvement. I've tried to make it work with Vite and I found many incompatibility issues so I was forced to continue using webpack in my project. It would be nice if kepler.gl can work seamlessly with esbuild.

@futurebenmorris
Copy link
Author

Exactly my experience too @cesar-ibr.

The main issue I have come across is the lack of support in esbuild for dynamic require calls (see this issue which also references a number of other related issues).

Netlify are running a fork of esbuild where they have proposed a plugin to cater for this, but I'm still holding out hope for esbuild to bring this fork back into the package... fingers crossed!

Might be worth weighing in over on that thread to demonstrate more demand for such functionality.

@juanes30
Copy link

Is there any update with this issue?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants