There should just be one tool, one command. "modernjs build". Done.
You seem to be building an argument based on the idea that there's "one true way" to write web applications. There isn't. People have very different ideas about what's best. While ostensibly different tools do the same job, they take quite different approaches. For example, take "gulp vs grunt vs make vs npm" for the build process. gulp uses "JS with a framework" for config. grunt uses json. make uses unix-y scripting. npm uses JS but plain node.js without a framework. Those are opinions, and there isn't a "right" one.
Suggesting there should be one tool for compiling web apps is a bit like suggesting there should be one C compiler for compiling C programmes. There can only really be one tool if there's only one way to do things, and that's simply not the case. With different approaches comes different tools.
But, all that said, it doesn't matter to an individual developer. Choose the tools that suit you, learn them, and be happy. Whatever approach you take to development is far less important than writing software that works for your users.
> You seem to be building an argument based on the idea that there's "one true way" to write web applications.
Nah, you misunderstand me. I'm saying webpack+babel should be a single program with a sensible default config. I didn't mean to imply anything grander than that.
> Choose the tools that suit you, learn them, and be happy.
If someone decides to use Webpack+Babel, I don't think they're going to be "happy" about having to memorize a list of at least 9 different npm packages and 35 lines of configuration. Not to mention re-memorizing the new sets of packages and configurations every six months when some maintainer decides that package X should be split into packages Z, Q, and R, or that the current configuration tree is "wrong" and needs to be tweaked in backwards incompatible ways.
It's OK for tools to be opinionated and for there to be advocates for modernjs build vs. newjs build vs. stdjs build. It is even OK for there to be configuration knobs to twiddle. But the GP is absolutely correct that not enough effort is put into choosing good defaults that most developers won't need to fiddle with just to make tools work well together.
Right now, FE JS development mostly has a terrible OOTB experience.
You seem to be building an argument based on the idea that there's "one true way" to write web applications. There isn't. People have very different ideas about what's best. While ostensibly different tools do the same job, they take quite different approaches. For example, take "gulp vs grunt vs make vs npm" for the build process. gulp uses "JS with a framework" for config. grunt uses json. make uses unix-y scripting. npm uses JS but plain node.js without a framework. Those are opinions, and there isn't a "right" one.
Suggesting there should be one tool for compiling web apps is a bit like suggesting there should be one C compiler for compiling C programmes. There can only really be one tool if there's only one way to do things, and that's simply not the case. With different approaches comes different tools.
But, all that said, it doesn't matter to an individual developer. Choose the tools that suit you, learn them, and be happy. Whatever approach you take to development is far less important than writing software that works for your users.