> SVGs in JS have a cost and SVGs do not belong into your JS bundle This article appears to do a reasonable job of weighing the the performance pros and cons t

> SVGs in JS have a cost and SVGs do not belong into your JS bundle This article appears to do a reasonable job of weighing the the performance pros and cons to justify such a broad statement. However it fails to consider the use cases beyond plonking static SVG images into a page. The initial example of "people are embedding SVG icon packages as SVG in JS" seems to be the only type of use case that each abstract justification is being validated in. This advice needs a heavy qualifier of "for static assets", and even then, only when dealing with large individual assets, or large quantities of individual and artificially inseparable SVGs such as icon packages. I'm suspicious this whole argument stems from people blindly "importing" svg bundles into JS without fully understanding what that actually means in the end result of their bundle. It would be more useful to talk about this issue with it's original context, where there are multiple lessons to learn than coerce it into an over generalisation.