jods

@zewa666 I don't agree that looking at Aurelia size and trying to make it smaller worthless. For example by doing this exercice I could spot that `aurelia-hot-module-reload`, `aurelia-logging-console` were there...

@zewa666 of course I don't expect Aurelia to become 9Ko in size! 😆 I was looking at my webpack builds and I definitely think we can reduce the base size...

Some news, I finally managed to get tree shaking to work properly with Aurelia. | modules | raw | min | gzip | |---|---|---|---| | **commonjs, no tree shaking** |...

Important current tree-shaking limitation, for reference: webpack/webpack#2899 Underlying cause: mishoo/UglifyJS2#1261 This is a huge hindrance to remove dead code from Aurelia as it's heavily based on classes. Side-note: this is...

@lu4nm3 it's based on the new set of plugins I've made. I am holding off pushing the last (important) changes to jods4/aurelia-webkit because they need a few PR in core...

I have submitted a PR to remove `hot-module-reload` (which is fat) from builds that don't use `--hot`, typically production builds. Nice results, the size of the package is now **307K...

@niieani I think duplicate helpers will be removed with the current plan to move all sources to TS? I could experiment by pointing webpack to `src`, except that it needs...

I remember that I opened a ticket back then to make polyfills optional but it was rejected. In our apps for example we use corejs to build exactly the set...

I lurked around the code and here are a few observations: - There are some ES5 helpers repeated a few times across the whole codebase. -> the plans to migrate...

I noticed that webpack `style-loader`, which lets you `import "file.css"` from your code and automatically add it to the DOM when the module is executed is really doing the same...