Describe the change
Hey - this is a really cool tool to ease cross-runtime compatibility issues. But while I'm sure it could be used for browser use cases as well, I assume that it would often be a dangerous path to take there. It has some parallels with the old webpack behavior where nodejs APIs were "filled in" on use which led to significant bundle size issues when apps used the feature.
This is getting into the "is it the job of the library to tell users if using it is the right thing to do" gray area. But would you be open to some language in the README that clarifies that using unenv for in-browser apps may come with significant code size downsides and should be done with caution?
URLs
No response
Additional information
Describe the change
Hey - this is a really cool tool to ease cross-runtime compatibility issues. But while I'm sure it could be used for browser use cases as well, I assume that it would often be a dangerous path to take there. It has some parallels with the old webpack behavior where nodejs APIs were "filled in" on use which led to significant bundle size issues when apps used the feature.
This is getting into the "is it the job of the library to tell users if using it is the right thing to do" gray area. But would you be open to some language in the README that clarifies that using unenv for in-browser apps may come with significant code size downsides and should be done with caution?
URLs
No response
Additional information