3 ms·
Hrm, 84KB NX site vs. 12KB regular site. Is there 72KB worth of features/improvement? I understand it's just a demo, and that even at 84KB, that is a relatively
by kup0 10y ago
Hrm, 84KB NX site vs. 12KB regular site. Is there 72KB worth of features/improvement? I understand it's just a demo, and that even at 84KB, that is a relatively small size anyway, I'm just always curious when I see a site rebuilt in another tool and it balloons in size compared to the original.
Is HN a site that even needs to be an SPA anyway? It's fun as a demo, but maybe this type of site isn't a prime candidate as a typical SPA use-case?
Either way it's always fun to build something as an example or learning process, so please don't perceive my comments as having any ill will. Maybe all-in-all I'm just an old-school HTML/CSS guy that is admittedly having trouble in this new SPA world (a discussion HN has had ad nauseum, I know)
- thenewestkid 10y agoHi! Thanks for the comment, I think it's pretty constructive. The site is bigger because it is a SPA. It loads every static asset on start, compared to the HN approach which loads only the current page. The NX framework itself is 12kb zipped and 10kb minzipped. I agree, that it is not a typical use case, but it is starting to become a standard thing for new frameworks (like todoMVC). The point is to implement something that others implement too, to give a fair comparison to users (code).
- thenewestkid 10y agoAfter a second check: that extra 70kb (on top of the 12kb size of NX) is mostly from the FireBase and EventListener APIs that I use for real-time networking.