10 engineers on Hacker News describe using Browserify first-hand: 3 endorse it, 0 regret it, 1 are mixed.
“Browserify was nice for simple cases, but getting it to do what's needed in a large, real world application was really difficult.”
mixed · production · shados · 2016-11-02 · source ↗ · wrong label?“Browserify is useful because concatenating a bunch of JavaScript files is hardly the right way to be doing things.”
endorse · personal · thomasfoster96 · 2015-07-27 · source ↗ · wrong label?“it is a very straight forward process that makes development and starting new projects much quicker and easier.”
endorse · production · williamcotton · 2014-12-17 · source ↗ · wrong label?“We use Browserify, which is excellent, and allows you to partition your code into any number of bundles”
endorse · production · lobster_johnson · 2014-12-15 · source ↗ · wrong label?“we switched from a Backbone framework to React based with Reflux and Browserify.”
neutral · production · mikeryan · 2016-11-16 · source ↗ · wrong label?“it takes several lines of awkward boilerplate just to run a simple Browserify job that is a one-liner at the CLI”
neutral · production · Silhouette · 2016-01-20 · source ↗ · wrong label?“I've been using babel + browserify”
neutral · production · tracker1 · 2015-08-03 · source ↗ · wrong label?“I've been using babeljs and traceur before that for transpiling combined with browserify.”
neutral · production · tracker1 · 2015-07-20 · source ↗ · wrong label?“requirejs and browserify comparsion and benchmarking in various situations”
neutral · production · jenius · 2013-12-24 · source ↗ · wrong label?“we use node.js-style require()s with browserify instead of AMD”
neutral · production · substack · 2011-10-24 · source ↗ · wrong label?