Skip to content
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

4,5,6 챕터 정리 #41

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

4,5,6 챕터 정리 #41

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Seojunhwan
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@sangbooom sangbooom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

정리 감사합니다 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Copy link
Member

@hyesungoh hyesungoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 👍 👍 GOD of 정리

Comment on lines +18 to +19
- 브라우저에서 직접적으로 ESM을 사용하면 성능이 좋지 않다.
- dynamic import = require + tree shaking + async
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

혹시 요거 관련해서 좀 더 자세하게 설명해주실분 계실까요~?
무슨 내용이었는지 궁금합니다 ㅎㅎㅎ

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

디테일하게 설명해주시진 않았는데, 제가 이해하기론


네이티브 모듈만을 이용해서 서비스를 제공하면 성능이 번들러를 이용한거보다 좋지 않다~ 로 기억합니다

그 이유는 모듈을 잘게 나눈 만큼 파일을 여러개 요청해야되어 IO가 늘어나지만

번들러를 이용하면 파일이 알잘딱 합쳐져 필요한 파일만 요청하면 되기 때문입니다아

@WooWan 창완님이 추가 코멘트 남겨주시면 저도 좋겐네요 ....

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

예전에 아래 글을 봤던 기억으로 이야기드렸어요~
TL;DR: RsPack이랑 Vercel에서 bundler 없이 browser native esm 으로 테스트 함 -> 오히려 load time이 증가했다고 하네요

https://x.com/rspack_dev/status/1729435649177235539

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

아하 그 뜻이었군요 감사합니다!

@Seojunhwan Seojunhwan closed this Nov 5, 2024
@Seojunhwan Seojunhwan deleted the 챕터456/정리 branch November 5, 2024 11:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants