Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Webpack vs rollup: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this Markdown code, we will discuss the key differences between Webpack and Rollup. Both are popular module bundlers used in web development. Understanding their differences can help developers choose the most suitable tool for their projects.
Tree-Shaking: Webpack and Rollup differ in how they handle tree-shaking, which is the process of eliminating dead code from the final bundle. Webpack uses static analysis to determine which modules are used and excludes the ones that are not, resulting in a larger bundle size. On the other hand, Rollup performs more advanced analysis and can achieve better tree-shaking, resulting in smaller bundle sizes.
Code Splitting: When it comes to code splitting, Webpack and Rollup have different approaches. Webpack supports both dynamic and static code splitting, allowing developers to split their code into separate chunks that can be loaded on demand. Rollup, on the other hand, focuses more on static code splitting, which means that splitting happens at build time and not dynamically at runtime.
Configuration: The configuration of Webpack and Rollup also differs. Webpack has a more complex configuration system with multiple configuration files and various plugins. This flexibility allows developers to customize the bundling process to a greater extent. On the other hand, Rollup has a simpler configuration system with a single configuration file, making it easier to set up and get started.
Development vs Production: Webpack and Rollup also differ in their primary use cases. Webpack is often preferred for larger projects or projects that require more development-oriented features like hot module replacement and code splitting. Rollup, on the other hand, is commonly used for production builds where the focus is on producing efficient and optimized output.
Bundle Formats: Both Webpack and Rollup support different bundle formats. Webpack primarily generates bundles in the CommonJS or AMD format, which are suitable for development environments. Rollup, on the other hand, excels at generating bundles in the ES module format, making it compatible with modern JavaScript development workflows.
Performance: When it comes to performance, Webpack and Rollup have different trade-offs. Webpack is known for its efficiency in handling larger codebases and complex setups. It offers various optimizations and features that cater to the needs of larger projects but can come at the cost of longer build times. Rollup, on the other hand, is designed to be faster and more lightweight, making it a suitable choice for smaller projects or projects where build speed is crucial.
In summary, Webpack and Rollup have key differences in tree-shaking, code splitting, configuration, primary use cases, bundle formats, and performance. Understanding these differences can help developers choose the appropriate tool for their specific 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 rollup
- Makes it easy to publish packages4
- Easier configuration3
- Better tree shaking2
- Provides smaller bundle size2
- Integrates seamlessly with SystemJS1
- Produces very clean code1
- Very reliable1
- Very robust Plugin-API (years old Plugins still work)1
- Very flexible1
- Was built with ESM-Modules in mind1
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 rollup
- No clear path for static assets1
- No Loader like Webpack (need to use sjs or ESM imports)1
- Almost everything needs to be a Plugin1
- Manual Chunking is a bit buggy1
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