Correct term for built-in loader: rspack:xxxx-loader or builtin:xxxx-loader?

[hyf0]

Currently, Rspack is using builtin:xxxx-loader to represent the built-in loader.

• Would builtin:xxx-loader cause some misunderstanding?
• Is there a better pattern as a representation of the built-in loader?

@web-infra-dev/rspack cc

[hardfist]

or native:xxx-loader shows it is written in rust

[hyf0]

Yeah. It sounds better than rspack:xxx-loader and emphasizes these plugins which are running in Rust.

[Boshen]

A few points:

• built-in is an established industry word
• The end user doesn't care if it's written in Rust or JavaScript, as long as it is provided by the program, it's called a built-in
• Back in the old days, webpack provides built-in loaders such as json-loader, and they were referred as the built-in loader
• For developers (us), we can use the word native-loader to indicate it's written in Rust in our codebase / internal documentation

Please be careful with the terminology used for end users versus developers of the software.

[hyf0]

To be specific, the discussion are intend to decide how we represent the built-in loader in string in Rspack.

Currently, we are using builtin:xxx-loader.

and users would be affected by the conclusion of this discussion

{
  loader: 'native:xxx-loader'
}

So, it's not just a term for communicating but also a JavaScript value that affects Rspack.

[hyf0]

We are going to stay with builtin:xxx-loader.