-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 361
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
Option to use a faster transpile/bundle engine? #943
Comments
This would be nice, though both of those options would dramatically increase the on-disk size of Microbundle. Perhaps we could move to ESBuild at the same time as we ship a precompiled version of Microbundle, so the package would be a single 1mb JS file and a ~10mb |
@developit yeah that would definitely work! |
Hey @probablyup how are you!! I don't know much about SWC except as a happy end user, but I just opened #975 as a PoC - a way to effectively make I thought this might be an easier to incrementally adopt, lighter weight approach than shipping a whole different precompiled version of Microbundle. Also it'd be opt in, so people who are reliant on the current babel-based version of this library can keep using it until swc+microbundle has full feature parity. Some more details in the PR, @developit would be great to get your thoughts, I'd love to see something like this in microbundle! |
esbuild and swc come to mind, being able to sidestep TSC for build speed would be amazing.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/rollup-plugin-swc
https://www.npmjs.com/package/rollup-plugin-esbuild
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: