Live data from Hacker News

Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

github.com

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

#23
Noticed they added Facebook to the LICENSE. Facebook was notorious at one point for some unpopular language in their open source licenses. Does their inclusion in the LICENSE file mean a developer needs to be aware of how Facebook is currently (or in future) licensing React, as well as how Rax is licensed?

Re: Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

#24

Is it faster than Inferno[1]? [1] Inferno seems to be the fastest React drop-in replacement at 9kb size at the moment: http://stefankrause.net/js-frameworks-benchmark4/webdriver-t... - full post to the comparison table before: http://www.stefankrause.net/wp/?p=316

Those microbenchmarks are meaningless. If you choose a framework because of their microbenchmark grades you are making a huge mistake.

Re: Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

#27
post #9
post #3

Interesting that they don't compare it to preact: https://github.com/developit/preact

reading that, it seems pretty good. Are there performance costs to its diffing against the "real" DOM? 3kb for "React" is pretttttty tempting

Preact doesn't offer a full synthetic events system so handling e.g. touch events cross-browser may cause you a little more headache than it would in React.

But I'm currently using Preact (server-rendered) for my personal site and loving the speed and byte size.

Re: Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

#28
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reading that, it seems pretty good. Are there performance costs to its diffing against the "real" DOM? 3kb for "React" is pretttttty tempting

Forget about file size, 40kb vs 8kb doesn't really matter in the modern era. If anything, using an obscure library may cost you more because it's less likely to be a CDN cache hit for the user.

40kb is 40% of your budget if targeting mobile.

Re: Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

#29
post #26

Good to see compatible implementations. Over time, we'll have something React-like as part of the web standards.

>something React-like as part of the web standards.

Hell no. High-level APIs should remain in user space, they are too often optimized for short term thinking, prone to breakage, and inefficient.

Most of the current DOM specification has been around since 1998-2000, and the spec hasn't made a single breaking change. Standards committees have an obligation to not break the foundations of the web, framework authors can do whatever.

Re: Rax – A universal React-compatible render engine

#30
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reading that, it seems pretty good. Are there performance costs to its diffing against the "real" DOM? 3kb for "React" is pretttttty tempting

Forget about file size, 40kb vs 8kb doesn't really matter in the modern era. If anything, using an obscure library may cost you more because it's less likely to be a CDN cache hit for the user.

Start testing on a mid range Android device on 3G and tell me you still believe that.

On mobile it's not just the file transfer that takes time: it's the JavaScript parsing and execution (on a single core) that hurts too. iPhones are massively faster than Android (especially cheaper Androids) at this, so many developers don't realize how much performance cost there is for a growing majority of their users.

Given how many different versions there are of popular libraries I'm personally skeptical that CDNs give you much of a chance if the asset being preloaded from another site. I'd love to see real numbers on this though.

Post reply on HN