BrowserStack vs Webpack: What are the differences?
BrowserStack: Instant access to a lab of 1000+ real mobile and desktop browsers for testing. Live, Web-Based Browser Testing Instant access to all real mobile and desktop browsers. Say goodbye to your lab of devices and virtual machines; 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.
BrowserStack and Webpack are primarily classified as "Browser Testing" and "JS Build Tools / JS Task Runners" tools respectively.
"Multiple browsers", "Ease of use" and "Real browsers" are the key factors why developers consider BrowserStack; whereas "Most powerful bundler", "Built-in dev server with livereload" and "Can handle all types of assets" are the primary reasons why Webpack is favored.
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.
Airbnb, Instagram, and Pinterest are some of the popular companies that use Webpack, whereas BrowserStack is used by ebay, Typeform, and Wikipedia. Webpack has a broader approval, being mentioned in 2209 company stacks & 1344 developers stacks; compared to BrowserStack, which is listed in 579 company stacks and 239 developer stacks.
I am looking to purchase one of these tools for Mobile testing for my team. It should support Native, hybrid, and responsive app testing. It should also feature debugging, parallel execution, automation testing/easy integration with automation testing tools like Selenium, and the capability to provide availability of devices specifically for us to use at any time with good speed of performing all these activities.
I have already used Perfecto mobile, and Sauce Labs in my other projects before. I want to know how different or better is AWS Device farm in usage and how advantageous it would be for us to use it over other mentioned tools
I could define the next points why we have to migrate:
- Decrease build time of our application. (It was the main cause).
- Also
jspm installtakes 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.
