Vite and webpack (and thus turbopack, which is advertised as a webpack successor) are two different beasts. While vite is perfect for most users, there are jus

Vite and webpack (and thus turbopack, which is advertised as a webpack successor) are two different beasts. While vite is perfect for most users, there are just some usecases that are not doable with meaningful performance. Without boring you with details why, let me assure you that having a performant webpack replacement for those 10% who need it, helps vite staying lean, as they are not bothered with feature creep. If you want a small detail why: Vite is built on esbuild. Esbuild is carried by a single developer (https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/graphs/contributors https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/graphs/contributors) thus every nut and bolt that vite does for you on top is built in javascript, so you are in slow-land again. webpack and turbopacks promise (and complexity) is that it treats these extras (plugins and loaders) as first class citizens and thus tries to make them as fast as possible by applying tons of caching. E.g. if you'd throw a webpack workflow at vite, you might end up with a slower build then webpack. And this is where turbopack tries to improve.