The Day the Bundler Died: Revisiting Snowpack’s O(1) Architecture

Actually, I stumbled across an old repo on my backup drive last Tuesday—a React dashboard I built back in mid-2020. The package.json had a dependency I hadn’t thought about in years: snowpack. It triggered a vivid memory of the “O(1) build system” marketing that hit the scene around the launch of Snowpack 2.0. At the time, it sounded like pure witchcraft.

But back then, we were all drowning in Webpack config files that were longer than the actual application code. Waiting 40 seconds for a dev server to start was just… normal. Then Snowpack dropped this idea of unbundled development, and suddenly, the server started in 50 milliseconds. It felt illegal.

Sitting here in 2026, running Node 24.1.0 on my M3 Max, it’s easy to forget that the blazing fast speeds we get from modern tools like Vite and Turbopack basically owe their entire existence to the architectural shift Snowpack popularized. And understanding why it worked is still crucial for debugging the edge cases we face today.

The O(1) Lie (That Was Actually True)

The core promise was simple: build complexity should be O(1), not O(n). But Snowpack said, “Stop bundling in development.” Instead of smashing everything into a bundle.js, it served files individually using native ES Modules (ESM). The browser did the heavy lifting of importing dependencies. This meant the server only had to compile the single file you just edited. One file changed? One file recompiled. O(1).

And here is what that looked like in the browser. I pulled this snippet directly from that old 2020 project, and honestly, it still runs natively in Chrome 142 today without a build step:

// index.js
// The browser requests this, sees the import, and makes a NEW network request
import { formatDistance } from './utils/date-formatter.js';
import { startConfetti } from './modules/ui-effects.js';

const launchButton = document.querySelector('#launch-btn');

launchButton.addEventListener('click', async () => {
    console.log('Calculating launch parameters...');
    
    // Dynamic imports work natively too!
    const { launch } = await import('./modules/rocket-engine.js');
    
    const timeToLaunch = formatDistance(new Date(), new Date(2026, 1, 16));
    launch(timeToLaunch);
    startConfetti();
});

The “Waterfall” Problem

But, of course, nothing is free. The “unbundled” approach creates a massive network waterfall. I checked the Network tab in DevTools. On a cold start, my simple dashboard made 142 separate requests just to load the login screen. Even on localhost, that latency adds up.

Benchmarking the Ghost: Snowpack vs. Modern Vite

I got curious and decided to port the old Snowpack config to a modern Vite setup to see the raw difference on today’s hardware. And the results were pretty interesting.

Why This Still Matters

You might ask, “Why care about a dead tool?” But the mental model is the same. When you’re debugging a weird HMR issue in 2026, you’re debugging the architecture Snowpack championed.

Here’s a snippet I use in my current projects to handle HMR, which is virtually identical to the API Snowpack proposed years ago:

// This API hasn't changed much in 6 years
if (import.meta.hot) {
  import.meta.hot.accept((newModule) => {
    if (newModule) {
      // The module updated! Rerun the side effects
      console.log('[HMR] Module updated. Re-initializing...');
      newModule.initChart(); 
    } else {
      // The update failed, force a reload
      import.meta.hot.invalidate();
    }
  });
}

export function initChart() {
    const ctx = document.getElementById('chart').getContext('2d');
    // ... render logic
}

The Legacy

Snowpack didn’t lose because it was bad technology; it lost because it was incomplete technology. But it proved O(1) was possible, and tools that followed like Vite and Turbopack picked up that baton and ran with it.

So, next time your dev server starts before you can even lift your finger off the Enter key, pour one out for Snowpack. It died so our builds could live.