Vite+ 1.0 and Oxlint: The Speedup Claims I'll Test Before Switching
Confession: I have been putting off a lint cleanup for four months. Not because it's hard, but because every time I run the type-aware ESLint pass on a mid-sized TypeScript project, I go make coffee, come back, and it's still going. So when Evan You published a four-month progress report on VoidZero at Cloudflare with the line "up to 18x faster than ESLint in large codebases", my first reaction…
The article discusses the performance improvements of Vite+ 1.0 and Oxlint, a Rust-based JavaScript toolchain. Five aspects were announced: Oxc React Compiler speeds up React app compilation by up to 10x, Vitest 5 is up to 50% faster than its previous version, tsgolint is a type-aware engine that runs 12 to 18 times faster than ESLint, Oxfmt is 7x faster than Prettier, and Vite+ hit version 1.0.
The author notes that these are best-case scenarios and that the actual performance gains may vary depending on the specific project. They emphasize that benchmarks from the developers provide evidence of "can this be fast?" rather than "will this be fast for me?"
The author is particularly interested in type-aware linting, which is crucial for catching real bugs. They mention that tsgolint supports 59 of the 61 typescript-eslint type-aware rules and can share a single TypeScript program between linting and type-checking, potentially saving time in CI pipelines.
The article also addresses the change in configuration required to enable type-aware linting and highlights the importance of checking if the missing rules supported by tsgolint are critical for the team. Regarding Oxfmt, they prefer the bundled toolchain over potential Prettier replacements due to concerns about formatting commits and git blame.
Lastly, the author mentions Vite+ 1.0's bundled development environment and the React Compiler, which can be beneficial but may also lead to decision fatigue for developers who prefer sticking to well-established configurations.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
