|
|
|
|
|
by atemerev
3479 days ago
|
|
The migration path wasn't explained at all. This is fine, if there would be a nice documentation for new version. There wasn't, except for some scattered blog posts. This is fine, if new version offered some exciting new features or simplified thing a lot. But no, everything became significantly more complicated. This is fine, if Babel was a production library packed into final build, and modularity is necessary to save precious bytes from web-transmitted JS. But no, it is a development tool. Nobody cares about its size or one-size-fits-all. I just don't understand. What is the use case that required such a big sacrifice? |
|
With version 5, the default settings were a moving target (which I found confusing), and explicitly configuring it was more complex. Apparently the Babel team had great difficultly deciding what should be included by default as well.
Basically anybody that used Babel for something other than "6to5" had to jump through hoops to overwrite the defaults. Seeing as how the Babel team were trying to position it as a general purpose Javascript compiler, that was a problem for them.
So, maybe it's worse off for most people because of the change (because it doesn't work with zero configuration anymore), but plenty of people were better off because of it. The library became easier to maintain, and easier to use for a non-negligible number of users.