Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
UglifyJS vs Webpack: What are the differences?
Code Transformation: UglifyJS focuses primarily on code minification, compression, and mangling to reduce the size of JavaScript files. On the other hand, Webpack is a module bundler that allows for code transformation using loaders and plugins, making it more versatile in handling different file types and dependencies.
Module Bundling: Webpack excels in bundling various modules and assets into a single file, optimizing loading times and reducing network requests. UglifyJS, while it can be used with Webpack for minification, lacks the module bundling capabilities that Webpack offers out of the box.
Asset Management: Webpack provides comprehensive asset management capabilities through loaders and plugins, allowing for the processing of CSS, images, fonts, and other assets alongside JavaScript files. UglifyJS, on the other hand, is specifically focused on optimizing and compressing JavaScript code without extensive support for managing other types of assets.
Development vs Production: Webpack offers different configurations for development and production environments, enabling features like hot module replacement, source maps, and code splitting during development, while optimizing and minifying code for production builds. UglifyJS is typically used in production builds to minimize file sizes but does not have the same level of development-specific features as Webpack.
Tree Shaking: Webpack's tree shaking functionality allows for the removal of unused code during the bundling process, resulting in smaller file sizes and more efficient applications. UglifyJS, although it can remove dead code paths, does not have the same level of sophisticated tree shaking capabilities inherent in Webpack.
Plugin Eco-system: Webpack has a vast plugin ecosystem that extends its capabilities for tasks such as code optimization, asset management, and performance improvements. UglifyJS, while it can be used as a plugin with tools like Webpack, does not have a standalone plugin system like Webpack's, limiting its extensibility and adaptability in different development scenarios.
In Summary, the key differences between UglifyJS and Webpack lie in their focus on code transformations, module bundling, asset management, development features, tree shaking capabilities, and plugin ecosystems.
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 UglifyJS
- Great for javascript minification0
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 UglifyJS
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