Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#141

Post by cname »

bigmanwalter wrote: post #109
maxhallinan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Laravel + Bootstrap + JQuery + MySQL works pretty well then this modern stuff. It's interesting to remember that Facebook started out as a PHP application. I imagine that Facebook's original tech stack closely resembled the stack you're recommending. And scaling that stack is what led to the creation of React. If you choose to build a rich user interface (like Facebook or Netflix) on top of that stack, you will lik…

That's completely untrue. I've built both SPA and traditional fullstack applications similar to the mentioned architecture (although I prefer Python over PHP). Fullstack is a fraction of the complexity, with much more power. You can even use a simple library like PJAX to get all the same speed boosts an SPA offers without introducing any of the additional complexity. To be honest, I don't see what React offers beyond…

> I don't see what React offers...

It sounds like the sites you've worked on didn't have enough UI complexity to make something like React necessary. Even for a relatively simple admin or dashboard type site, using a more modern framework/library will make it much easier to build and maintain.

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#143

Post by dang »

mattdeboard wrote: post #29
falcolas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: So, the developer experience trumps the user experience, in an industry where fractions of a second of load time can cost a company customers and conversions?

Calm down. This is for a single, static landing page.

> Calm down.

Please don't break the HN guidelines by being uncivil. Your comment would be much better without that bit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#144

Post by dang »

jasonlotito wrote: post #117
positivecomment wrote: post #10

Today 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?

What's funny is that your conclusion is incorrect.

It would be much better to say how. Then your comment would be substantive and we would learn something.

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#145

Post by dang »

amsheehan wrote: post #121

rolls eyes so hard he falls over Not a chance that they were just, you know, using it wrong?

Please don't comment like this here.

If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#146

Post by 0xCMP »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #120
samsaccone wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi could you post some before and after traces (chrome dev tools recordings) of the site. Performance is nuanced, and the original tweet only helps to put down others (the react team) unfairly. I think the win here is less about react and more about not running as much javascript on the client. I hypothesize that the traces will show this, but it is impossible to know for sure without them :) Thanks in advance!

> the original tweet only helps to put down others (the react team) unfairly. There was nothing personal or malicious in that slide at all. Do we need a safe space to talk about performance metrics now?

Let’s say you think it’s not React or you have time to improve React to solve that problem: wouldn’t having some data help test that assertion and make changes?

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#147

Post by floatboth »

techaddict009 wrote: post #73

We learned this hard way :P We avoid fancy tools as much as possible and use basics as much as possible. Laravel + Bootstrap + JQuery + MySQL works pretty well then this modern stuff. Easy to implement, deploy and manage. P.S. Use knife which you really need. Try to use simple knife as much as possible.

What do you use jQuery for in 2017? querySelector, classList, fetch, … — everything we used jQuery for in 2010 is built-in.

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#148

Post by ry_ry »

Gaelan wrote: post #35
falcolas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: So, the developer experience trumps the user experience, in an industry where fractions of a second of load time can cost a company customers and conversions?

Better DX = more time to work on UX

This is a very salient point.

Ultimately many businesses will sacrifice polish and dev testing for features and deadlines on the skull-encrusted alter of short sprint cycles and rapid iteration.

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#149

Post by atomicUpdate »

0xCMP wrote: post #146
atomicUpdate wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the original tweet only helps to put down others (the react team) unfairly. There was nothing personal or malicious in that slide at all. Do we need a safe space to talk about performance metrics now?

Let’s say you think it’s not React or you have time to improve React to solve that problem: wouldn’t having some data help test that assertion and make changes?

We have the data: they removed React and performance increased by 50%.

Why should any more work be put into keeping React or improving it if their solution of removing it entirely already works?

Re: Netflix: Removing client-side React.js improved performance by 50%

#150

Post by christophilus »

dean wrote: post #114
1_player wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll have a look at Glimmer later, but who executes this bytecode?

> They are instantly executable by a small VM written as a JS library Guess you have download the VM on initial page load.

Yes. It's about 18KB of JavaScript.
Post reply on HN