Webpack vs Vite vs Rollup: A configuration engineer's nightmare

Modern front-end build tools are emerging one after another, with Webpack, Vite, and Rollup each having their own devoted followers. However, the complexity of configuration gives developers headaches. When starting a project from scratch, engineers often find themselves suffering from "choice paralysis" when faced with densely packed options in configuration files.

Webpack: The Swiss Army Knife of Configuration

Webpack's configuration files are a "textbook-level case" in front-end engineering. A basic production environment configuration requires addressing at least the following issues:

module.exports = {
  entry: './src/index.js',
  output: {
    filename: 'bundle.[contenthash].js',
    path: path.resolve(__dirname, 'dist')
  },
  module: {
    rules: [
      {
        test: /\.jsx?$/,
        exclude: /node_modules/,
        use: {
          loader: 'babel-loader',
          options: {
            presets: ['@babel/preset-env']
          }
        }
      },
      {
        test: /\.css$/,
        use: ['style-loader', 'css-loader', 'postcss-loader']
      }
    ]
  },
  plugins: [
    new HtmlWebpackPlugin({ template: './public/index.html' }),
    new MiniCssExtractPlugin()
  ]
}

Common pain points include:

• Different resources require different loaders (images, fonts, CSS preprocessors, etc.)
• Development/production environments need different configurations (sourceMap, code minification, etc.)
• Code splitting strategies require manual optimization
• Hot-reload configurations may conflict with other tools

Vite: Configuration Traps Behind Lightning Speed

Although Vite boasts "out-of-the-box" usability, the actual configuration complexity in real projects can be unexpectedly high:

// vite.config.js
export default defineConfig({
  plugins: [
    react(),
    legacy({
      targets: ['defaults', 'not IE 11']
    })
  ],
  resolve: {
    alias: {
      '@': path.resolve(__dirname, './src')
    }
  },
  build: {
    rollupOptions: {
      output: {
        manualChunks: (id) => {
          if (id.includes('node_modules')) {
            return 'vendor'
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
})

Common configuration challenges:

• Traditional browser compatibility requires additional polyfill configurations
• Special handling for SSR mode
• Path-matching rules for backend API proxying
• Loss of type hints when customizing Rollup configurations

Rollup: The Precision Scalpel for Library Development

Rollup's configuration appears simple, but the attention to detail can be maddening:

// rollup.config.js
import { terser } from 'rollup-plugin-terser'

export default {
  input: 'src/index.js',
  output: [
    {
      file: 'dist/bundle.esm.js',
      format: 'esm'
    },
    {
      file: 'dist/bundle.cjs.js',
      format: 'cjs'
    }
  ],
  plugins: [
    resolve(),
    commonjs(),
    json(),
    terser({
      compress: {
        drop_console: true
      }
    })
  ],
  external: ['react', 'react-dom']
}

Typical problem scenarios:

• Plugin duplication issues with multiple output formats
• Bizarre errors when mixing CommonJS and ESM
• Precise control over external dependency exclusion strategies
• Debugging difficulties when tree-shaking fails

Survival Guide for Configuration Hell

When dealing with these tools, consider the following practices:

1. Configuration Layering: Separate base configurations, environment configurations, and plugin configurations

// webpack-common.js
module.exports = {
  // Common configurations
}

// webpack-dev.js
const common = require('./webpack-common')
module.exports = merge(common, {
  // Development configurations
})

2. Type Safety: Use JSDoc or TypeScript to enhance configuration hints

import { Configuration } from 'webpack'

const config: Configuration = {
  // Get full type hints
}

3. Configuration Validation: Use schema-utils to validate configurations

import { validate } from 'schema-utils'
import schema from 'webpack/schemas/WebpackOptions.json'

validate(schema, config)

4. Visualization Tools: Use Webpack Dashboard or Vite plugins to analyze configurations

Version Matrix of the Toolchain

Configuration differences between tool versions can cause serious issues:

The Dark Art of Performance Tuning

Build performance optimizations often require unconventional configurations:

Webpack's persistent cache configuration:

module.exports = {
  cache: {
    type: 'filesystem',
    buildDependencies: {
      config: [__filename]
    }
  }
}

Vite's pre-build optimization:

optimizeDeps: {
  include: ['lodash-es'],
  exclude: ['vue-demi']
}

Rollup's parallel processing:

import { rollup } from 'rollup'

const builds = await Promise.all([
  rollup(inputOptions1),
  rollup(inputOptions2)
])

The Compatibility Puzzle of the Ecosystem

Configuration conflicts when mixing different tools:

1. Storybook + Vite: Requires maintaining two sets of plugin configurations
2. Jest + Webpack: Needs to mock Webpack's resolve logic
3. ESLint + Rollup: Requires synchronizing import resolution rules

// Resolving alias conflicts between Vite and Jest
module.exports = {
  moduleNameMapper: {
    '^@/(.*)$': '<rootDir>/src/$1'
  }
}