The Great JavaScript Framework Dependency Showdown
- comparison
- dependencies
- framework
- javascript
Behind the Scenes: Methodology Unveiled
Ever wondered what goes into the backbone of your favorite JavaScript frameworks? I embarked on a journey to dissect the dependency counts and sizes of starter templates across the JavaScript landscape. All findings are meticulously documented in this repository.
The Setup
- Package Manager: npm
- TypeScript: Included where possible
- Extras: Streamlined by omitting tools like eslint and prettier to keep the focus sharp
Caveats: Beyond the Numbers
Numbers tell a story, but context gives it life. While this analysis highlights dependency counts and sizes, it’s essential to understand the nuances that influence these metrics.
- Feature Sets: SvelteKit might boast fewer dependencies compared to Astro, but Astro brings built-in markdown processing to the table.
- Dependency Origins: Frameworks like Nuxt rely on UnJS for a suite of purpose-built packages, enhancing functionality without escalating risks.
- Bundling Practices: The way dependencies are bundled or minified can significantly impact their size, influencing overall project performance.
Crunching the Numbers: Metrics That Matter
Package Count
The total number of packages is a double-edged sword. More packages can mean more functionality but also introduce potential vulnerabilities and maintenance overhead.
As your dependency tree grows, so does the complexity. More packages mean more maintainers, which can be both a strength and a liability if not managed carefully.
Disk Space Consumption
The heft of your
node_modulesdirectory isn’t just about storage—it’s a reflection of how much code churn your development environment handles.
A smaller node_modules directory ensures faster installations and contributes to a more streamlined development experience. However, size doesn’t always equate to performance; it’s about what you utilize.
The Showdown: Comparing the Titans
| Framework | Create/Install Command | Packages | node_modules |
Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vite | npm create vite@5.5.2 |
11 | 51.5 MB | vanilla template |
| Next.js | npm create next-app@14.2.14 |
28 | 260.3 MB | |
| SvelteKit | npm create svelte@6.3.12 |
58 | 68.3 MB | skeleton template |
| Parcel | npm i parcel@2.12.0 |
189 | 307.2 MB | |
| 11ty | npm i @11ty/eleventy@3.0.0 |
206 | 28.1 MB | |
| Astro | npm create astro@4.9.0 |
417 | 191.1 MB | |
| Vinxi | npm i vinxi@0.4.3 |
454 | 131.6 MB | |
| Solid Start | npm create solid@0.5.13 |
554 | 169.4 MB | bare template |
| Remix | npm create remix@2.12.1 |
580 | 186.6 MB | Removed all tailwind and eslint dependencies |
| Nuxt | npx nuxi@3.14.0 init |
642 | 233.3 MB | |
| Angular | npm i -g @angular/cli@18.2.7 && ng new |
982 | 352.5 MB | css and ssr |
| create-react-app | npx create-react-app@5.0.1 |
1479 | 305.6 MB | Removed @testing-library/* and web-vitals |
Drawing Conclusions: What Do These Numbers Mean for You?
Understanding the dependency landscape is crucial for making informed decisions about which framework aligns with your project’s needs.
- Simplicity vs. Functionality: Frameworks with fewer dependencies like Vite offer simplicity and speed, perfect for projects that need to stay lean.
- Feature-Rich Environments: Larger frameworks like Angular provide a comprehensive suite of features out-of-the-box, ideal for enterprise-level applications.
- Balance is Key: It’s about finding the sweet spot between having enough dependencies to power your features without overburdening your project with unnecessary bloat.
Final Thoughts: Choose Wisely, Code Smartly
Your choice of framework sets the foundation for your project’s success. By understanding the dependency implications, you can strike a balance between performance, security, and functionality. Remember, it’s not just about the numbers—it’s about what those numbers enable you to create.