samccone/The-cost-of-transpiling-es2015-in-2016
View on GitHub ↗ ★ 1,323 JavaScript
Investigating the overhead cost of compiled es2015
9 mentions on Hacker News by 8 people: 3 stories, 6 comments · first 2016-02-02 · latest 2017-12-30
20082026
-
Are you referring to https://github.com/samccone/The-cost-of-transpiling-es2015-i... ? These benchmarks are about the cost of transpilation (where ES6 support is not native).
comment by tilt · 2016-04-25 · in Node.js ES2015/ES6 support -
Ironically the same person who first reported this npm vulnerability used the wrong package name uglifyjs instead of uglify-js in an unrelated github project. https://github.com/mishoo/UglifyJS2/issues/936#issuecomment-...…
comment by u223344 · 2016-03-26 · in Vulnerability #319816 – npm fails to restrict the actions of malicious packages -
Maybe this should link to the upstream? https://github.com/samccone/The-cost-of-transpiling-es2015-i...
comment by wldcordeiro · 2016-02-08 · in The cost of transpiling ES2015 in 2016 -
The Closure example failed to pass the compiler flags to minify the code, so the numbers are wrong. At a first glance, the Closure output is about half the size of the numbers published there. https://github.com/samccone/The-cost-of-transpi…
comment by evmar · 2016-02-03 · in Investigating the overhead cost of compiled ES2015 -
Hi, member of the TypeScript team here. A big reason for the file size increase seems to be the inclusion of an AMD module loader and AMD prologues themselves. By targeting CommonJS and using Browserify, you see a nice decrease. I've sent…
comment by DanRosenwasser · 2016-02-03 · in Investigating the overhead cost of compiled ES2015 -
I was just going to comment that it would be interesting to see the size of a run-through with browserify+uglifyify+uglify but looks like there is already a PR for it. https://github.com/samccone/The-cost-of-transpiling-es2015-i...
comment by kasbah · 2016-02-02 · in Investigating the overhead cost of compiled ES2015