Reduce size of @voltagent/core

[kwaa]

https://pkg-size.dev/@voltagent/core

Since this is just some advice, I created it as a discussion rather than an issue.

Install size

Splitting libsql into @voltagent/libsql instantly reduces the installation size by about 30 MB.

Bundle size

npm-check-updates more than doubled the size.

Others

Supporting only ESM reduces some of the bulk, and interoperability with CJS is no longer an issue at Node.js 22+.

https://antfu.me/posts/move-on-to-esm-only

[zrosenbauer]

@kwaa could you open a PR possibly and share the benchmarks/data on the /dist diff?

[kwaa]

@kwaa could you open a PR possibly and share the benchmarks/data on the /dist diff?

Since this will be a breaking change, I want to ensure that the maintainers are willing to accept it before opening a pull request.

[zrosenbauer]

@kwaa is this include dev deps or prod deps only?

[kwaa]

@kwaa is this include dev deps or prod deps only?

prod. I use https://pkg-size.dev, you can try it too.

[baseballyama]

We should definitely go ESM-only. VoltAgent has already dropped Node 18 support, so require(esm) is now available.
Since require(esm) has been backported to Node 20, it should work fine there too, right?

Ideally, it's better to work the core in edge environments, so even 2MB feels too large. For now, I’d like to reduce the bundle size as much as possible, aiming to eventually get it under 500KB.

[kwaa]

We should definitely go ESM-only. VoltAgent has already dropped Node 18 support, so require(esm) is now available. Since require(esm) has been backported to Node 20, it should work fine there too, right?

Ideally, it's better to work the core in edge environments, so even 2MB feels too large. For now, I’d like to reduce the bundle size as much as possible, aiming to eventually get it under 500KB.

@omeraplak What do you think? I feel the same way about this; it would be great to be able to run VoltAgent on a browser.

[omeraplak]

Yeah, I agree. We can definitely go ESM-only.
Just wondering, would this count as a breaking change for any existing users?

[zrosenbauer]

@omeraplak yes but overall I'm 100% behind this move... cjs needs to retire HA... been fighting that too long now-a-days

[omeraplak]

Hey,
I've just removed npm-check-updates dependency. I see that many users are still on node@20. I’m not sure how we can encourage them to upgrade to node@22. I’m a bit worried we might lose some users because of this.

[zrosenbauer]

@omeraplak can you reachout directly (not sure on #)

I don't believe there are giant differences that would break peoples applications 20 => 22. Also 20 is in maintenance until April 26, should we keep support until officially not maintained by node?