What is the pros and cons of using Rails asset pipeline vs. webpack to hold assets?

In terms of strictly holding assets - I don't think there's too much difference. However, I've recently migrated one of our apps from the asset pipeline to webpack - I will try share some learnings of why webpack is beneficial below.

• Despite Rails being a fast moving and dynamic web framework, using the newest front-end tools with the default rails assets handler is difficult. Managing JS libraries with bundler is a pain. Webpack makes maintaining 3rd party libraries considerably easier.
• Page loads using webpack were faster with webpack than the default asset pipeline considering it compiled files by default during each refresh.
• Rails directory structure doesn't distinguish clearly enough between the front-end and back-end of the application. The dawn of single page applications has meant that identifying the client-side of an app as a separate entity and not some addon to the back-end is something we viewed as quite important. Front end components are not just addons. They are their own beings.
• Separating assets from views is strange - views and assets create one being and should sit in one place, Rails views are treated more like a backpack on the controller.
• Hot-reloading of our app front-end is great. This saves a lot of time in development.

However

• we've found that it can be volatile with constant configuration changes and unfriendly as a result.
• It doesn't run automatically on a request, like something like sprockets does. For example, if you are using webpacker, You need to have the webpacker dev server running that first looks for file changes, then compiles, and only then may reload your page.

The fact that webpack is primarily concerned with js and not jpegs, pngs, svgs etc. makes comparing the rails asset pipeline and webpack a little confusing...

Not sure if it did, but I hope this helps!