I really really don't understand why people replace Brunch with Webpack while I keep seeing complaining about Webpack problem. Except the React mobs make that happen. I wonder how many people need what Brunch can't do which are specified in http://brunch.io/docs/why-brunch. Not sure if including Webpack by default would "treat JavaScript as a first-class citizen".
Also, Elixir is not Ruby, not even "it's like". Don't talk about what's going behind the scene yet. Even on the surface - syntax, can you list what similar syntax except def(do)end? I can't think of any, maybe i miss something but I'm sure there aren't many or maybe it's just that def(do)end.
> Since everyone is using the same tools for config
I don't think so in terms of releases. There are controversial ways of configuring `sys.config` and environment variables. No consensus here.
There are designed similarities in the naming of modules and functions. Many mimic the names of modules/classes and methods of Ruby code and standard libs.
Past the naming and def do end layers they are very different languages, as one should expect. The main basic difference is due to pattern matching, which pops up everywhere even in function definitions. If then else is the first casualty.
A word about JS. I'm working in a project with an Phoenix backend and A React front end. The (mainly) front end developer chose Webpack. I had to fiddle with the configuration files and man, it's not a language for DSLs. It's no Ruby. I don't want to say those files are inherently messy, but for a moment I tried to remember if Java's configuration XMLs were as bad as that.
I've come around to Brunch, and I think it's the right choice for Phoenix.
I used Webpack for a while, but every time I needed to setup a new project I had to go back to the docs to figure out what I wanted. I tried using a generator, and it was awful... maintaining all the generated Webpack configurations was like trying to maintain a whole project within my project.
I wish Brunch had some more in-depth documentation, but I like not wasting so much time on getting that stuff setup.
> maintaining all the generated Webpack configurations was like trying to maintain a whole project within my project
That's true to me too. I'm not happy leaving a bunch of generated configuration I hesitate to touch in my project folder. It includes too many of what aren't supposed to be changed, and freedom is not an excuse for this case.
Also, Elixir is not Ruby, not even "it's like". Don't talk about what's going behind the scene yet. Even on the surface - syntax, can you list what similar syntax except def(do)end? I can't think of any, maybe i miss something but I'm sure there aren't many or maybe it's just that def(do)end.
> Since everyone is using the same tools for config
I don't think so in terms of releases. There are controversial ways of configuring `sys.config` and environment variables. No consensus here.