Webpack can package CSS and images, arguably better than sprockets can (depending on your use case). Whatever your feelings on sprockets, there is a significant ecosystem of webpack plugins for managing images and CSS that often make it desirable to manage CSS and images with it. It feels really ick…

This used to irk me as well, but I had an “aha” moment when I read this blog post Importing images with Webpacker - rossta.net Isn’t weird to put images and css in a folder called “javascript”? Depends. If you consider, from webpack’s perspective, everything is a JavaScript module, it may not be s…

Well at compile-time, I think the ruby based SASS/SCSS assets are much faster than Webpack–and that almost goes without saying, since I don’t think JS is nearly as fast as Ruby and Webpack relies upon so many plugins to actually act as the “asset pipeline”. I definitely get frustrated by how long i…

I do agree that can be frustrating. The real issue for this topic though is the naming of the app/javascripts directory. The clear reason is that Rails still expects you to use Sprockets for css and images.

I was actually under the impression the reason it’s the app/javascript was just for compatibility with people who have apps still partially using the asset pipeline and can’t fully upgrade to web pack right out of the upgrade to Rails 6/Webpack 4/5. I still use some core/vanilla javascript and havi…

I wish we could keep the old format: assets/stylesheets assets/javascripts etc. for Webpack as well. I thought that was a tidy and intuitive way to organize a project. Though I realize it doesn’t necessarily play well with some JS frameworks.

my vote would go to app/frontend

If you only want to use webpack, you can remove sprockets and use app/assets as your directory. It’s configurable with webpacker. I find that the folder being named javascript suggests how it is intended to be used by default. Don’t like it or also want to include other assets? You can rename it.

[image] crimson-knight: , I think the ruby based SASS/SCSS assets are much faster than Webpack–and that almost goes without saying, since I don’t think JS is nearly as fast as Ruby and Webpack relies upon so many plugins to actually act as the “asset pipeline”. Have you tried enabling “chunks…

I’ve renamed app/javascripts to app/assets_webpack in the projects where I’ve used webpack, because I didn’t like putting css in a “javascripts” folder. This also puts both assets directories next to each other in TextMate which is useful. I haven’t fully migrated any projects to use exclusively we…

I think documentation, such as improvements to the Rails guides, could help here. We could help address questions about setup, such as directory names and layout, both for developers that prefer the Rails default (Webpacker for JS, Sprockets for CSS and images) and the “all-in” on Webpacker approac…

App/javascript feels like the wrong name for that directory

A May Of WTFs

Betsy_Haibel (Betsy Haibel) May 9, 2020, 2:22pm 17

Noticing a lot of crossover between this and Sprockets abandonment - #29 by Betsy_Haibel.

Topic		Replies	Views
Sprockets abandonment A May Of WTFs sprockets	80	16938	March 1, 2022
Should I use app/javascript without webpacker? rubyonrails-talk	5	1283	June 21, 2023
Webpacker presents a more difficult OOB experience for JS Sprinkles than Sprockets did A May Of WTFs webpacker	33	8619	February 7, 2021
Future of sprockets rubyonrails-talk	1	314	February 12, 2019
Webpacker and "config" file organization A May Of WTFs	6	1201	January 8, 2021

App/javascript feels like the wrong name for that directory

Related topics

More Resources