Skip to content

Conversation

@wkirby
Copy link
Contributor

@wkirby wkirby commented Mar 15, 2017

Partially addresses #5. We lose a lot of great functionality by abandoning lodash or underscore entirely, but this will at least let us reduce our footprint to just the modules we actually use.

In each all the cases here, the lodash version is at least as fast as the native es6 implementation, so we're not sacrificing performance.

Possible future enhancements include a small refactor to use only components in lodash-core to allow the end user to swap out underscore for lodash with their build tool

@wkirby wkirby requested a review from ncallaway March 15, 2017 06:18
Copy link

@ncallaway ncallaway left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Why is snyk unhappy?

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Mar 15, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling adfb7f9 on reduce-lodash-deps into fa57e03 on master.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants