Recommended Web Development Libraries and Tools
My recommendations for libraries and tools to be used in web development.
preset-env transpiler to get the new EcmaScript features, or PostCSS to get the new CSS features. Then, the priority of adding features should be
- As a transpiler, which modifies code behind the scenes’s. For example, Autoprefixer.
- As a code fixer, which modifies the code automatically. For example, Prettier.
- As a code linter, which detects issues. For example, ESLint plugins.
- As a testing utility, which helps you to write detection of issues during testing. For example, “Ghost” testing to detect differences in the way your app is displayed on different browsers.
- CSS Modules
- AWS Lightsail
- Koa—Like Express, but with promises
- Zod—Schema validation library for TypeScript
- tRPC—Remote Procedure Calls for TypeScript
- Hasura—Create a GraphQL API from an existing, non-GraphQL database.
Rome is a code formatter and linter with ambitions to also become a build tool, bundler, and test runner. This would make it a current competitor to my recommendation for formatting, Prettier, and linting, ESLint. If they succeed in expanding their utility, however, they would put themselves in direct competition with Vite, Vitest, and Babel.
I like the idea of a unified set of tools. There is an issue with tooling where my configuration for builds may not match that of type-checking or linting, causing my builds to choke on code which my static analysis permitted, or causing my static analysis to forbid code which my build tooling would have happily converted. Rome even ships with a vs-code extension, such that your IDE warnings and errors are the exact same as those that will occur on build.
Granted, I use NeoVim, but Rome’s integration with VS Code is based on LSP, so I might be able to integrate it into NeoVim myself, though it would take some effort.
Code formatters are simple to evaluate—objectively, do they work, and subjectively, do you like the resultant formatting? I suspect that Rome does successfully format code without errors. Not because code formatting is easy, but because it is a very do or die space to be in. If it ever fails, it would not be used. The use of Rome for formatting will then soley depend on whether or not you like the result.
As for being a linter, I don’t think that Rome can replace ESLint any time soon. Rome appearsto have 63 rules. Whereas ESLint appears to ship with 285 active rules, and that’s not to mention the rules made available by third-party plugins. Rule count will never be a direct comparison, but I suspect there are plenty of errors which ESLint will find that Rome will selently permit. Luckily, your linter need not be an exclusive relationship. Rome may be run alongside ESLint, and doing so provides a unique opportunity to vet their offering. Assuming you fix issues right away, whichever linter you run second will only report those issues that only it could detect, as the first linter’s results have already been resolved. Granted, this runs contrary to Romes value-proposition—that being one tool to rule them all—but in the case of static analysis, I believe more can never hurt.
One advantage I do believe that Rome has over ESLint is the clarity of its error messages. My configuration of ESLint will only report which error failed and where it failed, (in terms of a line and column), along with an hard-coded english explanation for the error. Rome appears to print a snippet of the offending code, which I find more helpful. When ESLint reports an error, I often find myself ignoring everything except the reported location, as looking at the code is almost always more useful than the report when trying to determine the issue.
* Based on using
querySelector to count the