The core of webpack (the module bundler) seems nice and well designed. The plugin/loader system seems scenario solved to hell.
How serious are you about being willing to accept proposals that are afield of the current design?
-
-
The stuff in that issue is small potatoes compared to what I'd want to float ;)
-
How about this, before you spend the cray cray amounts of time, start with a no longer then 1 page spec. Then we can flush out possibilities
-
You don't need to worry about me spending crazy amounts of time ;)
-
-
Is he the kind of kid who puts everything in his mouth? Looks like he's trying to get a taste of that tower


-
Mine is, we joke its borderline pika

-
Although Pika is a very serious condition that shouldn't be taken lightly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We have an obligation to backwards compat for serious breaking changes (aka so third part plugins can catch up) but open to say the least.
-
I'm a fan of compatibility :) I'm mostly interested in a better declarative system for transforms that are not strictly about bundling.
-
I've been working with
@tomdale on some glimmer stuff and a lot of the process is too bolted on when not strictly building a JS bundle. -
Well that as you know is temporal. With our WebAssembly changes we will allow a way to have x as first class citizen, and get their own
-
bundle types (css, html, whatever), and runtimes and means for loading async and sync. This will begin the journey for v4-5
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.