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
Move from terser
to esbuild
#2987
Comments
I don't feel like our build times are a problem. They are only a couple seconds currently. I went with terser because the plugin is developed by rollup and more likely to continue being supported than a plugin created by a lone developer. I'm ok with either. It should be easy to switch in the future if needed. |
True, but
Then why not switch to |
I've never used vite, but I'm all for learning new things. Are you talking about replacing our docs with vite? |
That's something i rarely see. Most of the people are impervious to change.
I was talking about replacing If you want i can try to send a PR, replacing |
Sure, it looks like vite uses rollup anyways so I don't see the point in adding a new layer. But if you create a PR we can see what the benefits are. |
If it can reduces the size of the npm package I think it would be worth it. The gzip size grew dramatically after switching to typescript. Mainly because we now have to include source maps for each file. |
@UziTech If you're interested in migrating to Vite, I've reproduced the source code for |
What pain point are you perceiving?.
it seems that
marked
is using terser for bundlingmarked/rollup.config.js
Line 2 in de85e70
marked/rollup.config.js
Line 44 in de85e70
But terser is slower ( about 10x ) than esbuild.
Describe the solution you'd like
It would be better if
marked
moved toesbuild
+rollup
( or maybevite
) for it's bundling process.Rollup has :
rollup-plugin-esbuild
Vite natively supports esbuild
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: