Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Underscore JS is at 1.4.2 instead of 1.4.4 (newer version) #776

Closed
tjoyal opened this issue Mar 4, 2013 · 16 comments
Closed

Underscore JS is at 1.4.2 instead of 1.4.4 (newer version) #776

tjoyal opened this issue Mar 4, 2013 · 16 comments

Comments

@tjoyal
Copy link

@tjoyal tjoyal commented Mar 4, 2013

1.4.4 — Jan. 30, 2013
1.4.3 — Dec. 4, 2012

https://github.com/meteor/meteor/blob/master/packages/underscore/underscore.js

@gschmidt
Copy link
Member

@gschmidt gschmidt commented Mar 5, 2013

Thanks. Assuming we don't find any problems, we will do this the next time we rebuild dev_bundle (Meteor's upstream dependency kit) which will likely, but not definitely, be before the next Meteor releases. If there is a reason why this is more urgent please let us know.

@glasser
Copy link
Member

@glasser glasser commented Mar 7, 2013

devel is now running with Underscore 1.4.4.

@glasser glasser closed this Mar 7, 2013
@n1mmy
Copy link
Member

@n1mmy n1mmy commented Mar 12, 2013

We had to revert this change. 1.4.4 seems like a big performance regression. Further investigation is needed to determine why and what to do about this.

@n1mmy n1mmy reopened this Mar 12, 2013
@glasser
Copy link
Member

@glasser glasser commented Mar 12, 2013

client-side specifically, right?

@n1mmy
Copy link
Member

@n1mmy n1mmy commented Mar 12, 2013

At least client side. Haven't gotten a good comparison server side yet.

@fightingtheboss
Copy link

@fightingtheboss fightingtheboss commented Mar 21, 2013

Has there been any thought to switching to lodash.js from underscore.js? In theory it's a drop-in replacement (using the underscore build option) and the reported performance gains are significant.

@gschmidt
Copy link
Member

@gschmidt gschmidt commented Mar 21, 2013

@fightingtheboss Yes, definitely have been thinking about lodash, and also about providing an easy mechanism to define additional _ extensions in packages. We've even done some (very preliminary and hypothetical) thinking about automatically linking in just the lodash functions that your app (or your package dependencies) actually need.

@glasser
Copy link
Member

@glasser glasser commented Mar 21, 2013

Specifically, we tested lodash a month or two ago and found that it broke UglifyJS, which required us to upgrade Uglify... which we found broke Fibers, which required us to work with the maintainer of Fibers to improve Fibers... and then we haven't found time to get back to testing lodash again. Definitely interested in it, though. There are a few functions we would like to use heavily (eg we would replace all uses of _.each which don't need to be polymorphic between arrays and objects with _.forOwn which means we don't break if an object has a numeric length field).

@fightingtheboss
Copy link

@fightingtheboss fightingtheboss commented Mar 22, 2013

I totally know how deep and dark some rabbit holes get. Looking forward to the ultimate results of all your hard work.

@alexgorbatchev
Copy link

@alexgorbatchev alexgorbatchev commented May 15, 2013

👍 for lodash

@avital
Copy link
Contributor

@avital avital commented Sep 26, 2013

We're at underscore 1.5.1 now.

@avital avital closed this Sep 26, 2013
@jdalton
Copy link

@jdalton jdalton commented Oct 2, 2013

The current stable is Underscore 1.5.2. Also, have you revisited Lo-Dash, any issues I can help with?

@glasser
Copy link
Member

@glasser glasser commented Oct 2, 2013

Heh, "try lodash" has continually been on the "should do this sometime when I feel like I have time for lots of QA" list :)

It's also still the case that http://lodash.com/ doesn't seem to tell me what I should expect to happen if I swap in the modern or compatibility build for Underscore: ie, it lists the extra features that lodash has, but not if any existing Underscore behavior is changed by the non-Underscore build.

@jdalton
Copy link

@jdalton jdalton commented Oct 2, 2013

It's also still the case that http://lodash.com/ doesn't seem to tell me what I should expect to happen if I swap in the modern or compatibility build for Underscore: ie, it lists the extra features that lodash has, but not if any existing Underscore behavior is changed by the non-Underscore build.

It's mentioned on the custom-builds page via a reference to the wiki. There's also an extensive blog post by @kitcambridge over the various builds.

@glasser
Copy link
Member

@glasser glasser commented Oct 2, 2013

Ooh, that is pretty clear!

@raix
Copy link
Contributor

@raix raix commented Oct 2, 2013

So would lodash be before or after version 1? (still got the one old confirmed bug #594 ) and would you take pr's or have the core on this?

Nice - would we get config/options in packages or even as runtime bundles? I'm thinking the custom build looks nice - got same issue with bootstrap 3 configurations. (@gschmidt did ask for feedback)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
9 participants