jsx-loader
jsx-loader copied to clipboard
petehunt
ES6 modules support
Please accept this pull request so we don't have to use forks.. @petehunt Are you still using the jsx-loader at Instagram and Facebook? If not, what are you using instead?
@prayerslayer Sure but babel-loader is slow and shouldn't be used on too many files (just quoting the docs). Are you working on a big codebase with it?
No, just starting. Would you mind posting a link to said docs?
-----Original Message----- From: Alexandrine Boissière [email protected] Reply: petehunt/jsx-loader [email protected]> Date: 17 Mar 2015 at 21:54:29 To: petehunt/jsx-loader [email protected]> Cc: Nikolaus Piccolotto [email protected]> Subject: Re: [jsx-loader] ES6 modules support (#46)
@prayerslayer Sure but babel-loader is slow and shouldn't be used on too many files (just
quoting the docs). Are you working on a big codebase with it?
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/petehunt/jsx-loader/pull/46#issuecomment-82596475
It is actually in the readme file: https://github.com/babel/babel-loader#babel-loader-is-slow
Sorry I have to nitpick here, but it doesn't say that it's slow and you shouldn't use it on a large codebase. It says if you're experiencing a slow babel-loader, then make sure you're not doing unnecessary transformation. Which sounds reasonable.
But I don't want to imply that you are wrong! Have you tried babel on your code? What scale of "slow" are we talking about?
Edit: On a second read I get that the babel-loader docs are not really clear on this part. One could understand it both ways. But since it's listed under "troubleshooting" I didn't get the impression that "babel is slow" is meant as a warning. :)
You're completely right. However when we tested both tools, jsx was faster than Babel.
