-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
Decide what framework to use to build our Chrome extension #9
Comments
Here is a quick summary of our tools: @ykdojo ToolsParcel.js
PlasmoPlasmo Overview:
Development Features:
Browser Extension Utility:
Case Study - ArConnect:
Case Study - Liveblocks:
Plasmo Itero:
Production Deployment:
Vite
|
My take on this is that Parcel.js and Vite are all great tools with a general purpose, while Plasmo is specifically designed for browser extensions. For me, I think the best tool for this project would be Plasmo cc: @ykdojo |
Thank you for sharing this, @Jonath-z |
I recommend choosing Plasmo as our framework. With a focus on extension development, Plasmo offers potential performance advantages. This decision aligns well with our project goals and ensures a smoother development process. |
Thank you both. @Jonath-z let me know if you might want to turn what you wrote into a Medium post, as well. We have a publication for this kind of thing. |
@ykdojo definitely yeah. I would love that |
Great! Here's the publication: https://medium.com/cs-dojo It hasn't been active recently but we can start it up again. |
^Looks like we all agree on Plasmo, so let's go with it. |
Plasmo? Parcel.js? Vite?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: