I've seen this argument before and by and large it's less to do with React and more with Javascript in general. You can look up more arguments on YouTube, there's a GOTO talk called "We don't need all that Javascript, do we?". A large part of it it's targeted at large frameworks, with React front and center.
But some points do sound crappy.
Without context, the statistic is meaningless. Sure, recent versions of React are slower than newer versions of Angular. But it's a relevant comparison only if: a) you do some breakdown per version and b) you benchmark the same site with same content in all but the framework in which it's rendered (eg: same images, etc). React it's faster than Angular up to version 4 but then it gets bigger in comparison and slower. All sites, what does it mean? Same type of dynamic web apps, or just static HTML or what? Like I said, no context.
Errr ... what? I guess that could be a concern in the US, where I heard there's still plenty of pay as you go ADSL, so if you have to transfer 500kb that's a measurable bill as opposed to unlimited broadband plans. I can't think of any place in Europe where that would apply, even for ADSL.
Again ... what? I've bene building webapps for 17 years, in the last 7 I've never, not once, worked for a customer concerned about feature phones (again, maybe a US or Africa concern, mostly?). or they capability to load JS. Which, as per above, it's not a React specific concern unless someone build feature phone browsers that somehow detect React and reject it. Also, this is not an issue to take with developers unless they develop their own product. Developing with feature phones in mind is expensive in itself because you're just about precluded from using JS in general, up to some basic stuff. In those cases I had to develop with this in mind, we ended up creating a separate basic application launched quite a bit later.
Also, on a general note, there's a difference between execution speed and load speed. For execution, just about any "virtual-DOM" framework like React and Angular will be slower than a native JS precompiled app like Svelte (which will also work in more environments).
True, though this refers to any rich interactive SPA. You might do something a partially loaded bit of static content, if that's how your application should work, but I wouldn't bend over backwards to try and do that in all circumstances. In most of my recent apps, useful stuff gets loaded remotely.
Also, to keep in mind, JS exists because it enables behaviours that are not possible with all the other technologies listed. We have more options now.
If what you need can be released on the market faster as a SPA, with reasonable performance for your target audience, then that's what matters.
Ok, but why is that even relevant? If you don't like those people, I supposed.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I've seen this argument before and by and large it's less to do with React and more with Javascript in general. You can look up more arguments on YouTube, there's a GOTO talk called "We don't need all that Javascript, do we?". A large part of it it's targeted at large frameworks, with React front and center.
But some points do sound crappy.
Without context, the statistic is meaningless. Sure, recent versions of React are slower than newer versions of Angular. But it's a relevant comparison only if: a) you do some breakdown per version and b) you benchmark the same site with same content in all but the framework in which it's rendered (eg: same images, etc). React it's faster than Angular up to version 4 but then it gets bigger in comparison and slower. All sites, what does it mean? Same type of dynamic web apps, or just static HTML or what? Like I said, no context.
Errr ... what? I guess that could be a concern in the US, where I heard there's still plenty of pay as you go ADSL, so if you have to transfer 500kb that's a measurable bill as opposed to unlimited broadband plans. I can't think of any place in Europe where that would apply, even for ADSL.
Again ... what? I've bene building webapps for 17 years, in the last 7 I've never, not once, worked for a customer concerned about feature phones (again, maybe a US or Africa concern, mostly?). or they capability to load JS. Which, as per above, it's not a React specific concern unless someone build feature phone browsers that somehow detect React and reject it. Also, this is not an issue to take with developers unless they develop their own product. Developing with feature phones in mind is expensive in itself because you're just about precluded from using JS in general, up to some basic stuff. In those cases I had to develop with this in mind, we ended up creating a separate basic application launched quite a bit later.
Also, on a general note, there's a difference between execution speed and load speed. For execution, just about any "virtual-DOM" framework like React and Angular will be slower than a native JS precompiled app like Svelte (which will also work in more environments).
True, though this refers to any rich interactive SPA. You might do something a partially loaded bit of static content, if that's how your application should work, but I wouldn't bend over backwards to try and do that in all circumstances. In most of my recent apps, useful stuff gets loaded remotely.
Also, to keep in mind, JS exists because it enables behaviours that are not possible with all the other technologies listed. We have more options now.
If what you need can be released on the market faster as a SPA, with reasonable performance for your target audience, then that's what matters.
Ok, but why is that even relevant? If you don't like those people, I supposed.