-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 583
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add documentation for which features do not require traceur-runtime #1007
Comments
Alternatively make it so traceur-runtime can be custom built to only include specific features? Not sure how possible this is but it would be nice. |
Both are useful. I have been wanting to split up the runtime file so that custom runtime files can be made easier. Here is a first draft audit of the features and their dependency on a runtime: Default optionsRequires runtime
No runtime
Experimental OptionsRequires runtime
No runtime
|
Destructuring, modules, and spread all seem like they could reasonably be compiled out dependency free. I'm not familiar with the traceur code for these features but my goal is to be able to run modules through traceur with --modules=instantiate and be able to load them with SystemJS or es6-module-loader and no runtime... |
The intent is to make the runtime library more modular. See google#1007
Im playing around with adding options.standalone. Right now it works similarly to experimental except that it sets all options that are NOT flagged stand alone to off. What I am thinking is that there may be a more intuitive way to go about all this. It seems like the real desire would be to select the modules for a custom runtime build and automatically get the features that either don't need any runtime help or that depend on an included runtime but nothing else. Also it would be great if the runtime got built out to amd/commonjs/instantiate modules as well, leaving it up to the user to determine the bundling strategy etc. |
We toyed around with that idea before and I think it would be great. I think there might be some bootstrapping issues though. |
I guess you are thinking about loading runtime dependencies via module On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Erik Arvidsson [email protected]:
|
Great to see the runtime splitting up. Thanks guys! I was looking at the runtime dependency for destructuring and it seems like something that could probably be inlined without adding a ton of bloat. Is that something that has been discussed before? Once you decouple destructuring from needing the runtime then traceur becomes a lot more attractive as a general transcompiler with a set of optional features that DO require runtime support. I think if things looked more like the above then it would be much easier to get broader buy-in to using traceur in production scenarios. |
Move these method out of runtime.js See google#1007
+1 Also an option that enables all features that don't require runtime would be cool. |
Also +1 for standard traceour runtime in bower, component and npm registry. I woudn't like to host runtime precompiled with my library. I guess it should be a dependency. |
By definition, the compiler knows which ES6 features are being used by the subject code. As such, would it make sense to have the compiler produce the minimal runtime that matches the required features? Optionally either keep it as a separate build artefact or automatically prepend it to the app bundle? |
Yes. |
Also potentially add a compile option to enable ONLY those features that do NOT require the traceur-runtime.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: