3 ms·
I've used turbolinks in production and it is great. The progress bar is clunky, but it is optional, and not needed anyway if your pages render in a reasonable a
by jacobsenscott 9y ago
I've used turbolinks in production and it is great. The progress bar is clunky, but it is optional, and not needed anyway if your pages render in a reasonable amount of time (100ms to 200ms is "instant" to most people). I can't really fathom how the parent to your post saw a slowdown using turbolinks - because the server doesn't know the difference, and the client does less work.
- JoshMnem 9y agoTurbolinks is often a terrible user experience. The user doesn't measure page load in seconds, but in the perceived load in seconds. Turbolinks on slow connections feels painful, including on big sites with fast servers, like YouTube and Github.
- ksec 9y agoCan you define what do you mean by slow connection?
- JoshMnem 9y agoI often work at cafes. Sometimes the connections are slow. I sometimes middle-click the links open (new tab) to avoid having to wait for turbolinks.
- titusjohnson 9y agoYou know you'll wait the same amount of time, right?
- JoshMnem 9y agoMy comment above mentions that. It's about perceived page load time. There are small tricks that sites do to make UIs appear faster, even if they aren't really faster. Turbolinks has the opposite effect, making the loading appear to be worse on bad connections or when there are other rendering problems.