Web developer quotes In the survey responses, no specific parts of JavaScript (ECMAScript) were pointed out, but there was a theme of not knowing what's supported and needing transpilers or polyfills: I Sometimes just can figure out what version of ECMAscript is OK on a specific version of browser. I ES6 features support on old browsers. We need to write polyfills for old browsers I new ES6 features are still incompatible with firefox chrome etc. babel do this job but conversion takes much time to debug code. I The javascript part, I know if I use webpack and babel it could save my problem. But native support is always what i looking for. I Running code through transpilers often means that code is bloated and large file sizes
I Supporting IE browsers without having polyfills installed for ES6 features.
Most of our interview participants expressed that dealing with JavaScript isn't very problematic, attributing this mainly to the rise of transpilers like Babel in recent years: Obviously there are differences in support, but these are really not that problematic because you know what's supported and not, and it's very easy to deal with that. [...] In most projects I have a fairly common stack of Babel andWebpack, and also Babel polyfills. Babel became very popular for all the syntax stuff in the last couple of years, and I kind of see it as a given now, even though I also think that now, a couple years after it really became adopted, maybe starting from 2020 it actually should be an option to think about, if you actually need Babel in your build stack. [...] There's a project from the New York Times, polyfill.io, that does testing for browser features and lazy loads the polyfills. I always thought that was interesting to consider but [...] for now my approach is to keep the amount of polyfills we load in not too big, just see it as a necessary evil of probably 30%
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online