4 ms·
I've seen a few libraries that use a similar approach of parsing strings for pseudo-elements and then matching them with React elements to avoid splitting up me
by lewisl9029 8y ago
I've seen a few libraries that use a similar approach of parsing strings for pseudo-elements and then matching them with React elements to avoid splitting up messages, but I've always felt a lot of resistance towards adopting something like that because it means incurring the runtime cost of parsing a string for elements when you can easily have hundreds or thousands of messages being rendered at once. (Call it a premature optimization if you must, but I've been bitten enough times in the past for adopting libraries/approaches that scaled poorly performance wise and had to pay the cost in untimely, painful refactors.)
I feel there's a fundamental impedance mismatch here because we're defining messages as strings but the rest of our UI as React components. I described here a potentially different component-oriented approach as an attempt to get rid of this impedance mismatch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19681129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19681129
I'd love to hear some thoughts on that approach from folks with more real-world experience working with i18n than I do (which is not a whole lot sadly, given the nature of the kinds of projects I've worked on in the past).
- ivan_gammel 8y agoI’ve been trying to solve this problem in the resource4j library for Java, which can cache rendered strings, but in the end it’s always a memory vs performance problem. I didn’t publish any artificial benchmarks, but in couple real projects (resource4j+thymeleaf) performance impact was usually negligible.