I'm working on a simple microsite with a set budget. Nothing fancy- bootstrap+ jQuery + css and html. My first instinct was to start a new project with npm and then install Webpack. I have a few working sites built with Webpack but I wouldn't call myself proficient using it. Each time I use it, I have to look up all the tricks Webpack is capable of. Loaders for: css, scss, fonts, html, jpg assets. Plugins for global jQuery with '$', bootstrap module import, js minifiers, sass and css minifiers and a Webpack server for continuous builds.
Setting it up would take at lest 2 hours from my budget. I would feel better having code automation but I'm not sure if the client would notice. Also, using Webpack assumes that the person who will be making code changes in the future will know how to use it too...
I wonder where is the line between using Webpack and simply coding it the traditional way.
Top comments (5)
Honestly, that sounds like your planned setup is already too much.
When I was young :-), a website was put online within five minutes, we only needed a text editor and an FTP account. What I wanted to say is: Does your website really need all that fancy dynamic stuff? Have you tried to go one step back and ask yourself if you even need Bootstrap and jQuery?
Good points. For this project I most likely don't need 90% of what Webpack provides. It is an overkill to me but I was still curious to hear what others would do.
As for jQuery and Bootstrap- I can live without jQuery but still think that using Bootstrap is a good idea.
So yeah... so far an old school text editor and FTP wins ;)
Waste less time on deciding about frameworks and just make that site. ;-)
Webpack is the traditional way.
Since it really sounds like there won't be anything particularly wild happening, I strongly suggest Parcel. There's no setup.
Thanks Mihail, I will definately give it a try. It looks promising and from their Github page I can see that the community around it is quite large. That's always a good sign.