> "webpack and <whatever-task-runner>...together?"
I am ranting here today, only because, I just wanna know if "its okay..."
webpack is a great bundler. Its primary goal is to reduce the number of requests a browser would have to make to load your webpage (which may be a composition of many libraries - javascript or css). Which is cool...
But is webpack "only enough"?!
For something as basic as a "copy file operation" I had to..."do a lot of stuff". (https://github.com/deostroll/requests-spy/blob/ba40eee3bdbc7895aff45050bbd487699a202f30/webpack.config.js#L35-L55)
What I intended to do in the config I have linked to does its job. But webpack it still complains. It kinda got me wondering...
> Is webpack was meant to do those "basic" things...?!!
I'd rather use the node api for webpack from within some task-runner like grunt or gulp. I am simply much happier with how those tools support those "basic" things...
Actually read the title as:
> "webpack and <whatever-task-runner>...together?"
I am ranting here today, only because, I just wanna know if "its okay..."
webpack is a great bundler. Its primary goal is to reduce the number of requests a browser would have to make to load your webpage (which may be a composition of many libraries - javascript or css). Which is cool...
But is webpack "only enough"?!
For something as basic as a "copy file operation" I had to..."do a lot of stuff". (https://github.com/deostroll/requests-spy/blob/ba40eee3bdbc7895aff45050bbd487699a202f30/webpack.config.js#L35-L55)
What I intended to do in the config I have linked to does its job. But webpack it still complains. It kinda got me wondering...
> Is webpack was meant to do those "basic" things...?!!
I'd rather use the node api for webpack from within some task-runner like grunt or gulp. I am simply much happier with how those tools support those "basic" things...
Perhaps I am biased...Whats your take on this?