I know you're being facetious, but as someone who used to follow "the new hotness" JS libraries constantly coming out, I'd advise caution with this way of thinking. There is a tendency for developers to see every new library/framework/tool as "the new way" which obsoletes the old - often because the new tool advertises itself based on distinctions/improvements made over existing libraries.

Browserify, Webpack, Parcel, Rollup, Vite, Snowpack: people use all of these for different reasons & they all have their own advantages & drawbacks. It often doesn't make sense to abandon a stable solution for one which promises speed/magical features but may be full of bugs/untested (not saying this is true of Snowpack, but you can't just trust the claimed feature list as an accurate representation of the tool).

I mention this simply because I've been in so many situations where a dev casually denigrates someone else's work because it was built using an "old" solution, without engaging with the core functionality of the code. Like "oh, they're using Webpack, they must not have heard of Rollup." It's good to be re-evaluate the tools you use from time to time, but don't let the "new hotness" make you think the old tried-and-true ways are any less valid - many yaks have been shaved and bikes shedded this way.

Vite and Snowpack are a little different, though definitely similar in many regards.

There's some good info here: https://github.com/vitejs/vite#how-is-this-different-from-sn...

The salient points seem to be:

1. "Vite is more opinionated and supports more opt-in features by default - for example, features listed above like TypeScript transpilation, CSS import, CSS modules and PostCSS support all work out of the box without the need for configuration."

2. "Both solutions can also bundle the app for production, but Vite uses Rollup while Snowpack delegates it to Parcel/webpack. This isn't a significant difference, but worth being aware of if you intend to customize the build."