Quoting Sascha Steinbiss (2021-02-23 12:53:40) > >>>> If you are wondering why there haven't been any updates lately, I > >>>> am sad to announce that current versions of datatables.js does > >>>> not build anymore with the old version of closure-compiler in > >>>> Debian. > >>> > >>> Looks like it does not really need to use closure-compiler, so I > >>> would suggest to instead use uglifyjs. > >> > >> I see. Do you think that would be safe to use as a replacement? > >> Both would generate functionally equivalent minified JS, right? > >> Ignoring slight size differences, of course -- the uglifyjs output > >> is ~50KB larger than the closure-compiler one in a previous > >> version. > > > > In theory closure-compiler and uglify-js perform same type of task, > > yes. > > [...] > > > Only way to know for sure is to test that resulting uglified code > > does what it is supposed do to. > > Difficult, because the tool I initially needed it as a dependency for > (aegean) does not use the minified version. But I can tweak the output > to use that and see if the behaviour breaks -- it doesn't seem to > really use much of the datatables functionality with the non-minified > version anyway. So if it breaks in subtle ways I won't catch it.
Sounds like you don't know if your use of ancient closure-compiler is broken either. I recommend to use uglify-js even without being certain - better to be uncertain with a currently maintained general-purpose tool than being uncertain with an ancient general-purpose tool. (i.e. only if upstream had used custom advanced options for closure-compiler would I worry about tool-related breakage) > [...] > >> So I think it would be quite doable to scrap closure-compiler here > >> and switch to uglifyjs and sassc if you don't see any obvious > >> reasons to abandon upstream's choice of tools. Given my limited > >> expertise in JS best practices I would be happy to trust your > >> advice :) > > > > I sure think uglifyjs is safer to use than *outdated* > > closure-compiler. Just make sure to test the result as best you > > can. > > I wonder if there is anything that would allow me to easily test the > behaviour without really knowing much about what is possible with > datatables. I'll look at the other reverse deps when I find the time. If you _really_ want to be more conservative (which I think is unnecessary, but your call) then I recommend to *not* minify the code at all - i.e. replace with symlinks to the non-minified files. Better serve bloated but correct code than tiny but unreliable code. Vaguely comparable to compiling C code with "-O1": Hurts performance instead of stability. > > I even think that switching from outdated closure-compiler to > > uglifyjs is a noble thing to do during soft-freeze - but that's your > > call! > > I think I'd rather stick with a not-so-fresh version that is built > traditionally than shipping one I have not tested and does not use > upstream's recommended tools. I'd prefer to postpone this till the > next release. Unless there are volunteers... Please note that you most likely *already* don't use upstream's recommended tools: Do they recommend _ancient_ closure-copiler??? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
