I like how the people in replies to the top tweet seem to get angry at someone implying that React is not great.
For me they mostly show people asking for numbers and people making fun of them for using React for a boring landing page.
Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
11–20 of 172 posts
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#12Today we learned: Removing an advanced library from a simple project increases performance. Sorry for being sarcastic but don't you also find this too obvious?
I was thinking about the same thing. Well, you can remove CSS as well, I bet it would improve the performance.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#13Yup, the Twitter replies are pretty much what I expected. This tit-for-tat JS pissing contest is so old. Just use what makes sense for your project, there are no silver bullets.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#14Today we learned: Removing an advanced library from a simple project increases performance. Sorry for being sarcastic but don't you also find this too obvious?
I think it's the 50% part that we're meant to pay attention to. For me that's a pretty drastic, "why would you ever put this on the client side now that you know this" kind of thing.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#15My experience with React has not been good. A gullible manager bought into "react everywhere" hype, flew in consultants for training and then proceeded to have a dozen pages on the website written in React. It's important to note that all but one was either completely static or a simple form with less than 5 fields.
This project did not go well. It took months to develop, has 0 test coverage, numerous bugs and doesn't work on edge or IE and isn't rendered on the server so it's a bad experience.
Everyone on the team was either fired or quit less than 6 months after it launched.
After evaluating the level of effort it would take to get the code base in a maintainable state, it was decided to migrate it over to a more traditional stack (plain js, static html, html forms) and that was completed in less than 2 weeks. Customer metrics across the board also improved.
The lesson here is to use the appropriate technology for the appropriate problem. Unless your application is very complex, requires real-time updates and you can afford the extra maintenance costs -- react is probably the wrong choice.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#16did the same thing by removing ckeditor from a page it wasn't being used on. we all go through this at one point when taking another look at something with fresh eyes.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#17Today we learned: Removing an advanced library from a simple project increases performance. Sorry for being sarcastic but don't you also find this too obvious?
I was thinking about the same thing. Well, you can remove CSS as well, I bet it would improve the performance.
Go next level: Remove the whole browser and make a native application - gain even more performance!
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about the same thing. Well, you can remove CSS as well, I bet it would improve the performance.
Go next level: Remove the whole browser and make a native application - gain even more performance!
I just use lynx to browse and block downloading js files by default. I wrote this comment using ed and curl.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the talk they say they are still using react server side to make this mostly static page. I suppose with some cache in front of it though.
So basically they write React in front-end, then use react-renderer to generate static HTML and then serve it from back-end? Seems like with this speed JS frameworks are going full-circle back to back-end rendering soon enough.
Everything is a circle in web development. It appears to take about five to ten years for developer personnel to turn over close to 100%.
And so the cycle continues, with old ideas dusted off or rediscovered, the original flaws in them rediscovered, the reaction to those flaws, traveling well-trodden paths, then the reaction to the reaction, "best practices" shaking out, an explosion of complexity, and then someone burns down the baroque cathedral of ideas with, if we're lucky, a slightly less flawed version of the original old idea.
I've now done ASP.NET long enough to see WebForms come in, reach high tide, recede before the new hotness of MVC, MVC decline in favor of WebApi with monstrosities of JS frameworks in front of it, and now Razor Pages are coming back in as a simpler alternative, with concepts that an old WebForms developer from fifteen years ago wouldn't raise an eyebrow at.
Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%
#20Today we learned: Removing an advanced library from a simple project increases performance. Sorry for being sarcastic but don't you also find this too obvious?
I think it's the 50% part that we're meant to pay attention to. For me that's a pretty drastic, "why would you ever put this on the client side now that you know this" kind of thing.
Because it provides a robust, consistent, isomorphic framework which many people have decided that certain benefits (for us common tooling, maintenance, consistent implementation across the org, write once run twice isomorphism) outweigh the costs (interactable time, download size, etc). Everyone has to make their own choices, but this news was not surprising and did not change our opinion.