> But of course, you can continue to use whatever other tools you like: Beef up your dev experience (Babel, TypeScript) or optimize how you ship in production (Webpack, Rollup).
So I assume what one would end up with if they decided to us pika for their dependencies is a project that still uses webpack, but in addition uses pika instead of webpack for dependencies, ending up making pika 1 more build tool in the chain instead of a replacement.
No, the idea is that the dependencies are cached in js in the frontend and not loaded all dynamically by routers and SSR.
Basically routers are gone, no need for rebuild all the time. I think it’s a more optimized approach it’s less overhead inicial loading and we can load css in a more native way it makes more sense then the current build env we have.
I believe so, assuming that you're using Webpack for more than just bundling. In other words, it removes the need for a bundler but not other processes you might want in your build system.
So I assume what one would end up with if they decided to us pika for their dependencies is a project that still uses webpack, but in addition uses pika instead of webpack for dependencies, ending up making pika 1 more build tool in the chain instead of a replacement.
Is that a right assumption?