3 ms·

React (not just React, but they "meme"'d it) sold everyone on the DOM being slow. What they actually meant was that if you add & remove 5,000 elements one at a

React (not just React, but they "meme"'d it) sold everyone on the DOM being slow. What they actually meant was that if you add & remove 5,000 elements one at a time in a loop, it's slow. If you don't do that it's plenty fast and all of React's tricks to "make it fast" are just overhead that are bloating and slowing down your "app". (FWIW, I actually kind of like writing React, if I must do front-end JS, so I'm not hating on it just for hating's sake)

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> What they actually meant was that if you add & remove 5,000 elements one at a time in a loop, it's slow. Ok, but it's not trivial to build complex web-based applications that don't do exactly that. This is why there are so many frameworks out there that take care of that problem for you. React isn't the only one. Angular, Vue, and Svelte also handle this for the developer, using various different approaches. It's not just a gimmick. If the web standards themselves were up to the task, there'd be far less need for frameworks.
- moshmosh 5y ago
  I would agree that companies have mostly settled on paying 20% as much for development, at the cost of 5-10x the memory footprint and 5-10x the input latency in the finished program. I think the web tends to get hit the hardest by that because if a company is targeting the web for an "app" in the first place, they've already chosen cost savings over performance and UX, so they'll be prone to make even more trade-offs for the same reason within the web platform.
  - ctvo 5y ago
    > I think the web tends to get hit the hardest by that because if a company is targeting the web for an "app" in the first place, they've already chosen cost savings over performance and UX Or it could be they're choosing a ubiquitous, open, cross platform distribution model for their app?
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    I disagree, I prefer to Google something and have it instantly in my browser instead of having to find and install yet another app, then uninstall it when I'm done with it. Especially for stuff I only use once/rarely. Also, I might be using the latest iPhone, an old Android, Windows or Linux, or hell maybe my TV browser, and it's most likely going to work. The app wouldn't exist on at least half those platforms. There certainly are issues with webapps, but well done it can a really good UX.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      You're right that the web scores extremely well on portability and on having zero installation hassle. The points about efficiency still stand though. To put that another way: the web's upsides are real, and so are its downsides.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> What they actually meant was that if you add & remove 5,000 elements one at a time in a loop, it's slow. Ok, but it's not trivial to build complex web-based applications that don't do exactly that. This is why there are so many frameworks out there that take care of that problem for you. React isn't the only one. Angular, Vue, and Svelte also handle this for the developer, using various different approaches. It's not just a gimmick. If the web standards themselves were up to the task, there'd be far less need for frameworks.

moshmosh 5y ago
I would agree that companies have mostly settled on paying 20% as much for development, at the cost of 5-10x the memory footprint and 5-10x the input latency in the finished program. I think the web tends to get hit the hardest by that because if a company is targeting the web for an "app" in the first place, they've already chosen cost savings over performance and UX, so they'll be prone to make even more trade-offs for the same reason within the web platform.
- ctvo 5y ago
  > I think the web tends to get hit the hardest by that because if a company is targeting the web for an "app" in the first place, they've already chosen cost savings over performance and UX Or it could be they're choosing a ubiquitous, open, cross platform distribution model for their app?
- Leherenn 5y ago
  I disagree, I prefer to Google something and have it instantly in my browser instead of having to find and install yet another app, then uninstall it when I'm done with it. Especially for stuff I only use once/rarely. Also, I might be using the latest iPhone, an old Android, Windows or Linux, or hell maybe my TV browser, and it's most likely going to work. The app wouldn't exist on at least half those platforms. There certainly are issues with webapps, but well done it can a really good UX.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    You're right that the web scores extremely well on portability and on having zero installation hassle. The points about efficiency still stand though. To put that another way: the web's upsides are real, and so are its downsides.