3 ms·
150kb downloads almost instantly, even on 3G. Most websites have an image bigger than that somewhere on their homepage. It's not worth changing how I work.
by h33t-l4x0r 1y ago
150kb downloads almost instantly, even on 3G. Most websites have an image bigger than that somewhere on their homepage. It's not worth changing how I work.
- panstromek 1y agoJS can be 100x or even 1000x times more expensive to process than images. JS also blocks the main thread, while images can be processed in the background (and on GPU).
- h33t-l4x0r 1y agoNextjs with ssr is very light on client resources, I'm not sure about the other frameworks but I imagine it's comparable.
- sgt 1y agoIf it was only 150kB for most sites. Usually that's followed up with multiple assets, API calls, often chained. Making the site slow.
- h33t-l4x0r 1y ago150kb is the difference in size between the 2 frameworks. That's going to be true for all sites.
- troupo 1y agoSee Performance Inequality Gap https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-2024/ https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-... Your attitude is exactly why our supercomputers struggle to display even the simplest things with any kind of performance, and why pure text takes multiple seconds to appear
- mpeg 1y agoThe app in the article is a relatively simple demo app. These are the build times and sizes from a real relatively large react SPA I help maintain dist/assets/app.css 98.33 kB │ gzip: 17.69 kB dist/assets/app.js 1,050.14 kB │ gzip: 244.88 kB built in 15.41s At these sizes, an islands/resumable based approach can trim a ton of loading time on mobile