add stage4 constraint - ease-of-minification

kai zhu kaizhu256 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 01:09:31 UTC 2019


sorry that came out wrong, but i'm generally uncomfortable with the dearth
of reliable/correct es6+ compliant minifiers.  and i feel its an
industry-concern which slows product-development.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:35 PM kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, exactly. minification-tooling is a real-concern for any
> consumer-facing javascript-product, and not all of them want to rely on
> babel.
>
> Are you arguing all new javascript-products should be coerced to integrate
> with babel, because it has a monopoly on such critical-tooling?
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:28 PM Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So effectively, you're arguing that stagnant tools should hold back
>> evolution of the language, even when non-stagnant alternatives exist?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 3:26 PM kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Can you expand on what you mean by this, or provide an example of a
>>> > feature that can't be "easily minified”?
>>>
>>> fat-arrow/destructuring/es6-classes comes to mind.  if you have legacy
>>> build-chain that doesn't use babel or terser, is it worth the effort to
>>> retool the minifier to support these syntaxes so you can use it?  also any
>>> feature which introduce new symbol/symbol-combo which requires re-auditing
>>> minifier's regexp-detection (private-fields, optional-chaining, etc.).
>>>
>>> there’s also the argument using babel in minification-toolchain defeats
>>> the purpose of reducing code-size.
>>>
>>> > On 12 Feb 2019, at 4:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:44 AM kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> i think there’s an industry-painpoint (at least from my experience),
>>> of resistance adopting es6+ features because legacy-toolchains cannot be
>>> easily retooled to minify them.
>>> >>
>>> >> i’m not sure the best way to address this problem? i favor requiring
>>> 2 independent minifiers to be able to handle a stage3-proposal before
>>> advancement (indicating retooling is feasible), but that may be
>>> overly-restrictive to some folks.
>>> >
>>> > Can you expand on what you mean by this, or provide an example of a
>>> > feature that can't be "easily minified"?
>>> >
>>> > ~TJ
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190212/7cdfbce2/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list