minification

Although you would pretty much be forced to use GZip rather than just minification, which is good-ish.

Scripting languages usually don't have builds but JS minification and dependencies installation could be a build.

And its guts are a goddamned disaster (Closure's CSS minification hashing is a crime against humanity).

Given that it is used in Chrome and Firefox' DevTools, and that JS minification happens on the Web, it had to.

Javascript isn't far off binary in terms of readability nowadays with the level of packing/minification, so legibility isn't a deciding factor.

There's usually no need to explicitly concatenate the code prior to minification or other processing.

Unless you aren't using any form of minification or bundling at all, you need them even if you aren't using JSX.

Have you compared that to the transfer size of gzip without a minification step?

In production you get minification, concatenation, and cache busting of assets, as well as getting all assets copied to your output folder.

Finally, it also handles minification, either through a CLI option or in the config.

I haven't seen a real difference, myself, and I've been considering taking the minification step out.

I had a reasonable react based site down to ~400k after dead code removal and minification.

Renaming symbols, and minification in general, is not really "necessary", it's just something people do to extract a few % more of performance.

For example, Octane contains "Code loading", sunspider has "code decompression" (not true code loading, but at least it does de-minification).

> Any website worth its salt will minify the assets In Angular you'd assign a property called $inject to make "DI" still work even with minification, so it's not really an issue.

Minification with uglify reduced the size to 1.5MB and using Gzip compression further reduced the transfer size to ~800K.

Minification & obfuscation can only do so much without changing the logic of the script.

Minification is often a premature optimization.