Probably. It's just that I've always used .js for my projects (decades). Such a rename would likely result in configuration changes to the other tools I use, but indeed they are better documented. When faced with a multiplicity of conventions I pick one and stick to it; the tools are flexible enough to work with it I'm sure, the real issue is of discoverability.
HN user
vite_throwaway
4 karma
Posts0
Comments3
No posts found.
Vite 8.0 Is Out 4 months ago
Vite 8.0 Is Out 4 months ago
Thanks, I will consider this workaround later on.
Another instance is the use of rollupOptions.output.manualChunks that now has to be rewritten, maybe that would be less frustrating to fathom.
Vite 8.0 Is Out 4 months ago
I have a small React project using vite 7 and have the following in my config so that vite interprets ".js" files as JSX:
// See https://github.com/vitejs/vite/discussions/14652
esbuild: {
loader: "jsx",
include: /.*\.jsx?$/,
exclude: [],
},
optimizeDeps: {
esbuildOptions: {
loader: {
".js": "jsx",
},
},
},
Note the comment at the top. I had no idea how to come up with this config by checking the documentation pages of vite and its various related tools. Luckily I found the GitHub issue and someone else had come up with the right incantation.Now this new vite uses new tools, and their documentation is still lacking. I spent half an hour trying to figure out how vite (and related tools that I had to navigate and try to piece a coherent view of: esbuild, oxc, rolldown, etc.) might be convinced, but gave up and stayed with vite 7.
Someone could respond with a working solution and it would help, sure, but these tools sure as hell have documentation issues.