4 ms·
150ms is pretty standard server-side rendering React for a relatively simple page, but it scales pretty predictably with the complexity of the component tree. O
by andrewingram 10y ago
150ms is pretty standard server-side rendering React for a relatively simple page, but it scales pretty predictably with the complexity of the component tree. Obviously there are some caching strategies available, but I think the only real solution is going to come from serious investment in the problem from the React side. I can't see the core devs tackling it, because Facebook doesn't require it, but maybe the community can step in.
- tracker1 10y agoI feel that the tooling that Walmart Labs released (electrode) fills a lot of this void. The TL;DR of the article is really, "cache effectively." Which is true of so many things at scale.
- andrewingram 10y agoYes and no. I've been trying out their tools and whilst they do help a bit, the mileage varies and integration is quite invasive if you want decent results.
- tracker1 10y agoFair enough... but moving past bottlenecks with any platform tends to be so.
- flukus 10y agoReally? Because that is absolutely awful compared to other tech stacks, even other tech stacks from more than a decade ago.
- andrewingram 10y agoThat's because React isn't designed for server-rendering. It's able to do it, but if you expect the same performance as as traditional template engines you're going to have a bad time.
- flukus 10y agoSo why are people using server side react then? Is it any faster client side, because that would also be very slow?
- mercer 10y agoOne benefit is that you can render server-side and seamlessly take over on the client-side without needing a re-render. Another benefit is simply React's component-based approach itself. I once went as far as using React for wordpress templating just because I prefer its approach to the standard WP <?php echo $blah ?> shit. I wouldn't recommend that to others though.