3 ms·

Surprising that at the point when it crossed 100mb there was no-one on the team who raised any concerns. Perhaps this was a case of boiling the frog?

• warp 3y ago
  What I understood from the post was that it was only 168mb because tree-shaking didn't work on whatever version had support for server-side rendering. With working tree-shaking the bundle these developers were working with during development would be considerably smaller.
• afavour 3y ago
  Wouldn’t be at all surprised if no one was paying attention. Chrome on a top spec MacBook can chew through 100MB of JS without thinking about it. Someone on an old machine is screwed but hey, “works on my machine”…
• pault 3y ago
  Probably bundling the server side dependencies into the client. I’ve also seen this happen when people add uncompressed 4k png images and the build tool is configured to inline all static assets. Obviously there was a lack of domain knowledge in the company or this wouldn’t have happened.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]