Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
BrowserSync vs Webpack: What are the differences?
Key Differences between BrowserSync and Webpack
BrowserSync and Webpack are two popular tools used in web development. While they have some similarities, there are several key differences between them.
Build vs Runtime: The main difference between BrowserSync and Webpack lies in their purpose. Webpack is primarily a module bundler and build tool, used for managing and optimizing the front-end assets of a web application. On the other hand, BrowserSync is a runtime tool that allows you to keep multiple browsers and devices in sync while developing a website.
Hot Reloading vs Live Reloading: Webpack offers hot reloading, which means that it can update a running application without a full page reload. This makes development faster and more efficient, as only the modules that have changed are updated. BrowserSync, on the other hand, provides live reloading, which automatically refreshes the browser when changes are made to the source code.
Code Splitting vs Syncing: Webpack allows for code splitting, which enables you to split your code into smaller chunks and load them on demand. This can significantly improve the performance of your application by reducing the initial load time. BrowserSync, on the other hand, focuses on syncing actions like scroll, click, form input, and file changes across multiple connected browsers.
Configuration Complexity: Webpack has a steep learning curve and can be more complex to configure compared to BrowserSync. It requires setting up a configuration file with various loaders, plugins, and modules, which can be overwhelming for beginners. BrowserSync, on the other hand, is relatively easy to set up and requires minimal configuration.
Dependency Management: Webpack includes a powerful dependency management system that allows you to manage complex module dependencies and import styles, scripts, and other assets directly into your code. BrowserSync does not handle module dependencies and is mainly focused on synchronizing browsers and providing live reloading functionality.
Watching and Bundling: Webpack includes a file watcher that allows you to automatically rebuild your application when changes are made to the source code. It also bundles the assets together for deployment. BrowserSync, on the other hand, does not include a file watcher or bundling feature. It relies on a separate build tool like Grunt or Gulp to perform these tasks.
In summary, Webpack is primarily a build tool that focuses on optimizing and bundling front-end assets, while BrowserSync is a runtime tool that provides live syncing and reloading functionality. The choice between them depends on your specific needs and project requirements.
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 BrowserSync
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 BrowserSync
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