Programming

17417 readers

81 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

Why are NodeJS projects often "bundled", but not other interpreted languages? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/programming@programming.dev

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I mean, sure, that's probably heavily influenced by the need for bundling for the frontend.

But it isn't done blindly. Bundlers reduce the overall size of the code, either due to minification or tree-shaking (removing unused modules). It also removes the filesystem overhead of resolving and opening other modules.

Would bundling be useful in other interpreted languages?

I suppose you may count JVM's compilation to bytecode as being very similar.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Commercial projects that use interpreted languages often do this as part of their code obfuscation process. I hate it because it made modification and understanding what's happening under the hood harder.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Ideally you'd only do this for live deployments (production and possibly pre-production or staging / QA). For all other testing, you would keep it unbundled.