5 ms·

React SSR is not a problem, and I can get quicker TTFB than I ever remember getting with even a simple RoR app (300+ms yikes). I can also work faster with the

React SSR is not a problem, and I can get quicker TTFB than I ever remember getting with even a simple RoR app (300+ms yikes). I can also work faster with the React ecosystem (and find it much more enjoyable) than RoR and SSR makes the end result the same anyway. People like component-based frameworks and modern JavaScript (and its supersets). Things are different now. Deal with it!

wrl 8y ago
> Deal with it! We, your users, do deal with it. Constantly. Usually, we deal with it by waiting 30 seconds for your single-page application blog article to load because we only get intermittent 3G reception on the metro. I don't really care what sort of frameworks you like. Stop building shit webapps!
- juststeve 8y ago
  some sites are just modern Goldberg machines
- friedman23 8y ago
  Your complaint has nothing to do with using React over using other frameworks such as django. The problem you have is that people are not implementing SSR on their websites and they don't host all of their assets.
- scottmf 8y ago
  You missed the entire point of my comment.
taeric 8y ago
300ms for a simple RoR site? Sounds suspicious. That said. Even Gmail is on the order of seconds for being useful nowadays...
- TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
  Gmail has gotten painfully slow over the years. I just ran a quick timing test with a high-end 2017 MacBook Pro on Firefox: * It takes 2.53 seconds from hitting enter to being able to see my inbox. * It takes 9.96 seconds from hitting enter and clicking compose for the new message window to pop up. * It takes a whopping 15.95 seconds from hitting enter until the new message window pops up if you use the the following link: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox?compose=new https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox?compose=new Those times are pretty damn terrible. Even worse, this is with a primed cache!
  - sam0x17 8y ago
    Problem with your mac? I'm getting 2.23 seconds to open new message window from your link on a maxed out Lenovo X270 running Ubuntu 18.04 via Chromium. Mind you, I'm also on Gigabit internet. So yeah, Gmail is fucking slow.
    - taeric 8y ago
      Ha! I was curious why it was loading better for me today. Just recently switched to faster internet.
    - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
      I also have gibabit internet. Trying it out with Chromium, it loaded the direct link after 3.88 seconds. Trying it out with Safari, it loaded the direct link after 6.27 seconds. Firefox is pretty fast most of the time. Google's web apps are the only things that performs so poorly on it. I don't understand how they can have such a drastic performance disparity between browsers. Maybe they're just not testing enough on Firefox.
      - sam0x17 8y ago
        I mean, Google stands to benefit from google apps intentionally being slow on firefox, so who knows.
      - taeric 8y ago
deialtrous 8y ago
>Deal with it! Telling people "we don't like your broken crap" is one way of dealing with it.
- scottmf 8y ago
  The “deal with it” is aimed at developers, not users. The entire point of my comment is there is no difference in the end result when you have SSR. The user still receives a page of HTML and CSS, and then JavaScript is loaded.
sam0x17 8y ago
Crystal completely fixes your response time woes
- jtms 8y ago
  +1 to Crystal! Amber (Crystal MVC) is a very good framework as well... basically Rails, but about 100x faster
- ksec 8y ago
  That is assuming it will reach 1.0 soon and has a framework that is anywhere close to Rails. ( Lucky and Amber aren't close )
  - sam0x17 8y ago
    Still better than the node js ecosystem imo. We are using Amber in production, and it's been a pretty good experience. We control the Dockerfile so we aren't pressured to upgrade things the moment a breaking change comes out, but we stay on top of it.
  - sam0x17 8y ago
    Also if you haven't taken a look in the last 6 months, I would. Things have REALLY started to solidify and come together. They are also 2/3rds of the way through Windows support, which is the main barrier right now to 1.0. Nothing else significant is going to change before 1.0 AFAIK, and it's my job to know.
bdcravens 8y ago
TTFB vs TTLB is a real issue, if you load the shell instantaneously and then the page sits waiting on XHR and rendering.
- scottmf 8y ago
  TTFB with SSR. Not a shell. It seems from some responses that I wasn’t clear enough, my apologies.
flavio81 8y ago
>People like component-based frameworks and modern JavaScript (and its supersets). Things are different now. Deal with it! Yo modern Javascripters: Stop building crappy, slow and/or unreliable SPAs. Maybe afterwards you could tell everybody to "deal with it".

wrl 8y ago

> Deal with it! We, your users, do deal with it. Constantly. Usually, we deal with it by waiting 30 seconds for your single-page application blog article to load because we only get intermittent 3G reception on the metro. I don't really care what sort of frameworks you like. Stop building shit webapps!

juststeve 8y ago
some sites are just modern Goldberg machines
friedman23 8y ago
Your complaint has nothing to do with using React over using other frameworks such as django. The problem you have is that people are not implementing SSR on their websites and they don't host all of their assets.
scottmf 8y ago
You missed the entire point of my comment.

taeric 8y ago

300ms for a simple RoR site? Sounds suspicious. That said. Even Gmail is on the order of seconds for being useful nowadays...

TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
Gmail has gotten painfully slow over the years. I just ran a quick timing test with a high-end 2017 MacBook Pro on Firefox: * It takes 2.53 seconds from hitting enter to being able to see my inbox. * It takes 9.96 seconds from hitting enter and clicking compose for the new message window to pop up. * It takes a whopping 15.95 seconds from hitting enter until the new message window pops up if you use the the following link: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox?compose=new https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox?compose=new Those times are pretty damn terrible. Even worse, this is with a primed cache!
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Problem with your mac? I'm getting 2.23 seconds to open new message window from your link on a maxed out Lenovo X270 running Ubuntu 18.04 via Chromium. Mind you, I'm also on Gigabit internet. So yeah, Gmail is fucking slow.
  - taeric 8y ago
    Ha! I was curious why it was loading better for me today. Just recently switched to faster internet.
  - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
    I also have gibabit internet. Trying it out with Chromium, it loaded the direct link after 3.88 seconds. Trying it out with Safari, it loaded the direct link after 6.27 seconds. Firefox is pretty fast most of the time. Google's web apps are the only things that performs so poorly on it. I don't understand how they can have such a drastic performance disparity between browsers. Maybe they're just not testing enough on Firefox.
    - sam0x17 8y ago
      I mean, Google stands to benefit from google apps intentionally being slow on firefox, so who knows.
    - taeric 8y ago

deialtrous 8y ago

>Deal with it! Telling people "we don't like your broken crap" is one way of dealing with it.

scottmf 8y ago
The “deal with it” is aimed at developers, not users. The entire point of my comment is there is no difference in the end result when you have SSR. The user still receives a page of HTML and CSS, and then JavaScript is loaded.

sam0x17 8y ago

Crystal completely fixes your response time woes

jtms 8y ago
+1 to Crystal! Amber (Crystal MVC) is a very good framework as well... basically Rails, but about 100x faster
ksec 8y ago
That is assuming it will reach 1.0 soon and has a framework that is anywhere close to Rails. ( Lucky and Amber aren't close )
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Still better than the node js ecosystem imo. We are using Amber in production, and it's been a pretty good experience. We control the Dockerfile so we aren't pressured to upgrade things the moment a breaking change comes out, but we stay on top of it.
- sam0x17 8y ago
  Also if you haven't taken a look in the last 6 months, I would. Things have REALLY started to solidify and come together. They are also 2/3rds of the way through Windows support, which is the main barrier right now to 1.0. Nothing else significant is going to change before 1.0 AFAIK, and it's my job to know.

bdcravens 8y ago

TTFB vs TTLB is a real issue, if you load the shell instantaneously and then the page sits waiting on XHR and rendering.

scottmf 8y ago
TTFB with SSR. Not a shell. It seems from some responses that I wasn’t clear enough, my apologies.

flavio81 8y ago

>People like component-based frameworks and modern JavaScript (and its supersets). Things are different now. Deal with it! Yo modern Javascripters: Stop building crappy, slow and/or unreliable SPAs. Maybe afterwards you could tell everybody to "deal with it".