Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!


+ 1

+ 1
Add tool

Webpack vs Yeoman: What are the differences?

  1. File Bundling and Code Compilation: Webpack focuses on bundling various assets, such as JavaScript files, CSS files, images, etc., into a more optimized and manageable format, whereas Yeoman is more focused on providing generators to scaffold out new projects and automate repetitive tasks.
  2. Loaders and Plugins: Webpack makes use of loaders and plugins to process different types of files, apply transformations, and optimize the output bundle, while Yeoman provides a generator ecosystem to scaffold out projects with specific configurations and dependencies.
  3. Configuration Complexity: Webpack requires a more detailed configuration setup to define the entry point, output path, loaders, plugins, and other settings, making it suitable for complex projects with specific requirements, whereas Yeoman simplifies project initialization by using predefined generators that include common project setups.
  4. Built-in Development Server: Webpack comes with a built-in development server to serve the bundled assets locally and hot reload changes in real-time, improving the development workflow, whereas Yeoman focuses on project scaffolding and does not provide a development server out of the box.
  5. Module Bundling: Webpack treats every file in the dependency graph as a module, allowing for code splitting and dynamic imports, while Yeoman's focus is on project setup and generating boilerplate code rather than module bundling.
  6. Ecosystem Integration: Webpack is commonly used as part of a wider JavaScript ecosystem along with tools like Babel, ESLint, and Node.js, whereas Yeoman serves as a standalone tool for project scaffolding and automation, with less integration with other tools.

In Summary, Webpack and Yeoman differ in their focus on file bundling and code compilation, use of loaders and plugins, configuration complexity, built-in development server, module bundling approach, and ecosystem integration.

Decisions about Webpack and Yeoman
Aleksandr Filatov
Contract Software Engineer - Microsoft · | 4 upvotes · 287.2K views
Why migrated?

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 than npm 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.
See more

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.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Webpack
Pros of Yeoman
  • 309
    Most powerful bundler
  • 182
    Built-in dev server with livereload
  • 142
    Can handle all types of assets
  • 87
    Easy configuration
  • 22
  • 4
    Overengineered, Underdeveloped
  • 2
    Makes it easy to bundle static assets
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
    Better support in Browser Dev-Tools
  • 121
    Lightning-fast scaffolding
  • 83
  • 78
    Great build process
  • 57
    Open source
  • 49
  • 8
    Unit Testing

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Webpack
Cons of Yeoman
  • 15
    Hard to configure
  • 5
    No clear direction
  • 2
    Spaghetti-Code out of the box
  • 2
    SystemJS integration is quite lackluster
  • 2
    Loader architecture is quite a mess (unreliable/buggy)
  • 2
    Fire and Forget mentality of Core-Developers
  • 1
    Even harder to debug than Javascript

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

What is Webpack?

A bundler for javascript and friends. Packs many modules into a few bundled assets. Code Splitting allows to load parts for the application on demand. Through "loaders" modules can be CommonJs, AMD, ES6 modules, CSS, Images, JSON, Coffeescript, LESS, ... and your custom stuff.

What is Yeoman?

Yeoman is a robust and opinionated set of tools, libraries, and a workflow that can help developers quickly build beautiful, compelling web apps. It is comprised of yo - a scaffolding tool using our generator system, grunt - a task runner for your build process and bower for dependency management.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

What companies use Webpack?
What companies use Yeoman?
See which teams inside your own company are using Webpack or Yeoman.
Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

What tools integrate with Webpack?
What tools integrate with Yeoman?

Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

What are some alternatives to Webpack and Yeoman?
Build system automating tasks: minification and copying of all JavaScript files, static images. More capable of watching files to automatically rerun the task when a file changes.
Babel will turn your ES6+ code into ES5 friendly code, so you can start using it right now without waiting for browser support.
Parcel is a web application bundler, differentiated by its developer experience. It offers blazing fast performance utilizing multicore processing, and requires zero configuration.
Browserify lets you require('modules') in the browser by bundling up all of your dependencies.
The less work you have to do when performing repetitive tasks like minification, compilation, unit testing, linting, etc, the easier your job becomes. After you've configured it, a task runner can do most of that mundane work for you—and your team—with basically zero effort.
See all alternatives