After studying google closure compiler, I'm leaning towards a multi-ast-pass infrastructure for the minifier.
This is one of the few places where we are going to trade maintainability over performance, given the goal of the minifier is compression size not performance.
All of the terminologies and separation of concerns are aligned with google closure compiler.
Infrastructure of `terser` and `esbuild` are not suitable for us to study nor pursuit. Their code are so tightly coupled - I failed to comprehend any of them every time I try to walk through a piece of optmization. Google closure compiler despite being written in Java, it's actually the most readable minifier out there.
To improve performance between ast passes, I envision a change detection system over a portion of the code.
The benchmark will demonstrate the performance regression of running 5 ast passes instead of 2.
To complete this PR, I need to figure out "fix-point" and order of these ast passes.
This PR introduces two type alias to avoid the confusing const generic `pub struct Codegen<'a, const MINIFY: bool>`
* CodeGenerator - Code generator without whitespace removal.
* WhitespaceRemover - Code generator with whitespace removal.
Usage is changed to a builder pattern:
```rust
CodeGenerator::new()
.enable_comment(...)
.enable_sourcemap(...)
.build(&program);
```
- Adds option to `CodegenOptions` - `enable_typescript` to enable output
of TS.
- Stops skipping output that is TS when `enable_typescript` is enabled
- Adds TS support to
- Function
- FormalParameter
- BindingPattern
- Adds basic tests for TS generation
---------
Co-authored-by: Boshen <boshenc@gmail.com>
The runtime performance gains does not out weight the compilation speed from
building the custom allocators, which takes about a minute to build on
slower machines.
