Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Webpack vs Webpacker: What are the differences?
Introduction
Webpack and Webpacker are both popular JavaScript bundlers used in web development. While they serve a similar purpose, there are key differences between the two.
Architecture: Webpack is a standalone module bundler for JavaScript applications, allowing developers to create a dependency graph and package their code into a single or multiple bundles. On the other hand, Webpacker is a gem that integrates Webpack into Ruby on Rails applications, providing a streamlined process for using Webpack in Rails projects.
Configuration: Webpack offers a more flexible configuration setup, allowing developers to define custom loaders, plugins, and other build-related settings in a dedicated configuration file, typically named
webpack.config.js
. Webpacker, on the other hand, simplifies the configuration process by using convention over configuration. It sets up a default configuration file that handles common use cases automatically, reducing the need for explicit configuration.Asset Pipeline Integration: Webpacker is designed to work specifically with Ruby on Rails' asset pipeline. It integrates seamlessly with the pipeline, allowing developers to compile and manage JavaScript assets within the Rails application structure. Webpack, on the other hand, is language-agnostic and can be used with any web framework or project that requires JavaScript bundling.
Hot Module Replacement (HMR): Webpack comes with built-in support for Hot Module Replacement, a feature that allows modules to be updated without requiring a full page reload during development. It provides a smoother development experience by instantly reflecting changes in the browser. Webpacker also supports HMR, but as a Rails-specific feature, it requires additional configuration to set up.
Development Environment: Webpack offers a standalone development server, allowing developers to run their applications locally during development. This server provides features like live reloading, hot module replacement, and an easy way to test and debug web applications. Webpacker, being integrated into the Rails ecosystem, leverages the existing development server provided by Rails, making it more aligned with the Rails development workflow.
Plugins and Loaders: Webpack supports a vast ecosystem of plugins and loaders contributed by the community, offering a wide range of functionality to extend its core capabilities. Additionally, developers have the flexibility to define and use their own custom plugins and loaders. Webpacker, although built on top of Webpack, may have limited compatibility with certain Webpack plugins and loaders due to differences in configuration and integration.
In summary, Webpack is a highly customizable standalone bundler suitable for various web projects, while Webpacker is a Rails-specific integration of Webpack that simplifies the configuration and asset management process within the Ruby on Rails ecosystem.
The developer experience Webpack gave us was not delighting anyone. It works and is stable and consistent. It is also slow and frustrating. We decided to check out Vite as an alternative when moving to Vue 3 and have been amazed. It is very early in development and there are plenty of rough edges, but it has been a breath of fresh air not waiting for anything to update. It is so fast we have found ourselves using devtools in browser less because changing styles is just as fast in code. We felt confident using the tool because although it is early in its development, the production build is still provided by Rollup which is a mature tool. We also felt optimistic that as good as it is right now, it will only continue to get better, as it is being worked on very actively. So far we are really happy with the choice.
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 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
Pros of Webpacker
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
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