Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
Bug
What is the current behaviour?
We use preact and preact-router from their dist folder on npm
What is the expected behaviour?
Since we transpile node_modules ourselves we should be using preact and preact_router from their source. This will have no affect on the regular bundles but will have some saving on the module bundle generated.
If this is a feature request, what is motivation or use case for changing the behaviour?
Web perf
Please mention other relevant information.
Thumbs down
no? because?
Preact & Router are super optimized distributions. No user-settings are going to match it. /cc @developit
Now thats a thing I never knew, super interested in learning what is it?
Follow here. IIRC it's circa ~1kb savings. This is actually (can) happen often, and is part of the reason why bundling from node_modules is not the norm... for now.
feel free to close :), if there's no better solution
@developit We spoke about moving the optimizations to build size into preact-cli and applying these across all source instead of just one off packages.
Perhaps now is the time, or 3.1.0.
I'd support that 馃憤 It was a thumbs-down for present situation.
My original intention for CLI was to extract some of the config into standalone chunks. I finally got around to the Babel stuff (#639), but an uglify package was on my radar too. Perhaps the mapping lives there?
Another thing we can consider here is applying the Preact's minification processes to a bundled JS Modules version - with constant inlining, hoisting and a customized terser config I'm sure it'd be reasonably close to what preact ships over the wire today.
Most helpful comment
Another thing we can consider here is applying the Preact's minification processes to a bundled JS Modules version - with constant inlining, hoisting and a customized terser config I'm sure it'd be reasonably close to what preact ships over the wire today.