2 ms·

I very much agree that load time is not the only metric that should be measured. Unfortunately, it's one of the easiest to measure. It's also one which does not

I very much agree that load time is not the only metric that should be measured. Unfortunately, it's one of the easiest to measure. It's also one which does not sacrifice any other UX metric like low completion time leading to less satisfaction sort of corruptible metrics. Although, in my experience, usage of react is not indicative of a more capable, responsive, or lower defect application. Quite the opposite (for me) actually. React is a good (but not absolutely reliable) indicator of slow, unresponsive (in terms of response time, not resolution scaling, buggy, and frustrating UX. From the code examples of the suggested library, it looks like a pretty simple drop in replacement for many (if not all) cases. 10% for free would be a slam dunk.

tomgp 5y ago
As someone working predominantly on React sites for the last 4 years or so I absolutely agree. Of course you can write quick, responsive and solid sites with React but it’s not the automatic process some would like you to believe, you still have to try and often the effort required is not trivial. The problem I often find is that optimising React sites needs a bunch of knowledge and skills which are only tangentially and most related to those which you’d use to optimise a more traditional site. This is related to the topic of the OP i think; knowing how to write good css is a skill which css-in-js tries to pretend doesn’t matter but which absolutely does - things like Styled Components effectively enforce certain good practices but don’t remove the need to understand whats going on under the hood in all but the most basic of situations.