3 ms·
Not literally all of them, but users still have to download a lot more for each website, however basic, when it's built in a heavy framework with lots and lots
by sk0g 7y ago
Not literally all of them, but users still have to download a lot more for each website, however basic, when it's built in a heavy framework with lots and lots of little (client facing) utilities.
Gets a lot better when you're visiting lots of such pages, then you have a million versions of each library in your cache.
- Kaze404 7y agoI just created a project with create-react-app and served it with npm's "serve" package. My client downloaded a whopping 10KBs, half of which are React's logo which is a PNG file. It's really not as big of an issue as you think. Edit: For full transparency, this is the breakdown: index.html = 1.37KB main.hash.chunk.css + 2.hash.chunk.js + main.hash.chunk.js = 887B logo.hash.svg = 3.2KB logo192.png = 5.47KB
- sk0g 7y agoThat's pretty neat! I'd imagine it's that small because of minification too, but my experience with the React front end codebase at my work has left me rather scarred. So. Much. Bloat. My biggest issue is with people pulling in dumb libraries on npm that seem to live on someone's self hosted server though, so some branches will CD just fine, while others don't, and then I have to troubleshoot why something completely out of my control isn't working. Ugh
- Kaze404 7y agoI can empathize with that. In my experience front end does tend to pull in a significant amount of dependencies, and while I think we can do better I also think it's understandable to a certain extent. Web applications with the complexity we have now are relatively new and we're still trying to figure out how to do it properly. Sure, we had massive applications built with ASPX and jQuery before, but now the web does a lot more than display text and buttons to submit forms.