2 ms·
Okay, but that's an even worse idea than what I've seen Redux used for. Now you're splitting the UI between client and server in a completely custom way, that a
by kerkeslager 8y ago
Okay, but that's an even worse idea than what I've seen Redux used for. Now you're splitting the UI between client and server in a completely custom way, that adds even more complexity. Worse, the performance is likely to be worse because now you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux AND the latency cost of loading small parts as you go: the worst of both worlds. I doubt this is what the Redux folks had in mind, but if it was, it's even worse than I thought.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agoRedux is tiny. And with HTTP2 it's better to send multiple small resources than one large payload, especially when it's JS which will lock up when parsing.
- kalcode 8y ago>because now you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux Gonna have to quantify that. Cause I imagine if you did, you'd redact that statement. Redux is a very straightforwards and SMALL library that handles global state. Its concept can be difficult to follow at first which may cause some to think it way more complex under the hood than it really is.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago> you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux Redux is small. > the latency cost of loading small parts as you go The components are static JS split into files. Pop those into a CDN and you get the best of both worlds.