Artboard 16light, inspiration, solution, idea, innovation,ionicons-v5_logosGoogle Sheets iconSwift icon
Published at
Updated at
Reading time
This post is a note that includes my thoughts about something I found online. Check it out yourself!

The support for ES modules <script type="module"></script> is quite good these days. Browsers that support them are also able to deal with modern JavaScript (arrow functions, let/const, ...). That's cool, because you can include fewer JavaScript polyfills in your ES modules.

To make that work, you have to generate two versions of your source code. One version loads as a "normal script", it targets older browsers and includes a lot of polyfills.

The second version loads as an EcmaScript module. It targets evergreen browsers and includes more or less recent JavaScript syntax.

<!-- do not include polyfills -->
<script src="evergreen.js" type="module"></script>
<!-- ship lots of polyfills and babel magic -->
<script src="old.js" type="nomodule"></script>

I'm digging this approach! Jason Miller released a nice tool called "Worth it". It helps you to figure out what the savings are when shipping "unpolyfilled bundles". It's fascinating and worth a look! The savings are not as big as I expected them to be. Maybe the module/nomodule bridge is not worth it for your site after all?

Worth it application showing 7% savings thanks to module/nomodule

Was this post helpful?
Yes? Cool! You might want to check out Web Weekly for more WebDev shenanigans. The last edition went out 4 days ago.

Related Topics

Related Articles