> Can you expand on what you mean by this, or provide an example of a > feature that can't be "easily minified”?
fat-arrow/destructuring/es6-classes comes to mind. if you have legacy build-chain that doesn't use babel or terser, is it worth the effort to retool the minifier to support these syntaxes so you can use it? also any feature which introduce new symbol/symbol-combo which requires re-auditing minifier's regexp-detection (private-fields, optional-chaining, etc.). there’s also the argument using babel in minification-toolchain defeats the purpose of reducing code-size. > On 12 Feb 2019, at 4:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:44 AM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> i think there’s an industry-painpoint (at least from my experience), of >> resistance adopting es6+ features because legacy-toolchains cannot be easily >> retooled to minify them. >> >> i’m not sure the best way to address this problem? i favor requiring 2 >> independent minifiers to be able to handle a stage3-proposal before >> advancement (indicating retooling is feasible), but that may be >> overly-restrictive to some folks. > > Can you expand on what you mean by this, or provide an example of a > feature that can't be "easily minified"? > > ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
