Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CodeCommit vs Webpack: What are the differences?
AWS CodeCommit: Fully-managed source control service that makes it easy for companies to host secure and highly scalable private Git repositories. CodeCommit eliminates the need to operate your own source control system or worry about scaling its infrastructure. You can use CodeCommit to securely store anything from source code to binaries, and it works seamlessly with your existing Git tools; Webpack: A bundler for javascript and friends. A bundler for javascript and friends. Packs many modules into a few bundled assets. Code Splitting allows to load parts for the application on demand. Through "loaders" modules can be CommonJs, AMD, ES6 modules, CSS, Images, JSON, Coffeescript, LESS, ... and your custom stuff.
AWS CodeCommit and Webpack are primarily classified as "Code Collaboration & Version Control" and "JS Build Tools / JS Task Runners" tools respectively.
"Free private repos" is the top reason why over 39 developers like AWS CodeCommit, while over 307 developers mention "Most powerful bundler" as the leading cause for choosing Webpack.
Webpack is an open source tool with 49.8K GitHub stars and 6.27K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Webpack's open source repository on GitHub.
According to the StackShare community, Webpack has a broader approval, being mentioned in 2208 company stacks & 1340 developers stacks; compared to AWS CodeCommit, which is listed in 25 company stacks and 17 developer stacks.
I could define the next points why we have to migrate:
- Decrease build time of our application. (It was the main cause).
- Also
jspm install
takes much more time thannpm install
. - Many config files for SystemJS and JSPM. For Webpack you can use just one main config file, and you can use some separate config files for specific builds using inheritance and merge them.
We mostly use rollup to publish package onto NPM. For most all other use cases, we use the Meteor build tool (probably 99% of the time) for publishing packages. If you're using Node on FHIR you probably won't need to know rollup, unless you are somehow working on helping us publish front end user interface components using FHIR. That being said, we have been migrating away from Atmosphere package manager towards NPM. As we continue to migrate away, we may publish other NPM packages using rollup.
Pros of AWS CodeCommit
- Free private repos44
- IAM integration26
- Pay-As-You-Go Pricing24
- Amazon feels the most Secure20
- Repo data encrypted at rest19
- Faster deployments when using other AWS services11
- I can make repository by myself if I have AWS account11
- AWS CodePipeline integration8
- Codebuild integration6
- Does not support web hooks yet! :(6
- Cost Effective4
- No Git LFS! Dealbreaker for me2
- Integrated with AWS Ecosystem2
- Elastic Beanstalk Integration2
- Integration via SQS/SNS for events (replaces webhooks)1
- IAM1
- Open source friendly1
- Only US Region1
- Available in Ireland (Dublin) region1
- CodeDeploy Integration1
- Issue tracker1
- CodeCommit Trigger for an AWS Lambda Function1
- Ui0
Pros of Webpack
- Most powerful bundler309
- Built-in dev server with livereload182
- Can handle all types of assets142
- Easy configuration87
- Laravel-mix22
- Overengineered, Underdeveloped4
- Makes it easy to bundle static assets2
- Webpack-Encore2
- Redundant1
- Better support in Browser Dev-Tools1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CodeCommit
- UI sucks12
- SLOW4
- No Issue Tracker3
- Bad diffing/no blame2
- NO LFS support2
- No fork2
- No webhooks2
- Can't download file from UI1
- Only time based triggers1
- Accident-prone UI0
Cons of Webpack
- Hard to configure15
- No clear direction5
- Spaghetti-Code out of the box2
- SystemJS integration is quite lackluster2
- Loader architecture is quite a mess (unreliable/buggy)2
- Fire and Forget mentality of Core-Developers2