It seems to me that fast is marketing language, not technical. And that it was fast compared to some specific implementations of bindings that predated it in a context with similar assumptions about SPA architecture, but that it is not fast in absolute terms.
Because there are a lot of caveats. What about the large amount of JS required up front and how that trades away startup performance? What about the need for SSR and the uncanny valley of hydration? What about the loss of HTML's historically demonstrated ability to stream and gracefully degrade? What about the poor performance of virtual DOM based libraries on mobile devices? Etc.
But that'd make for a much longer and less satisfying article.
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.
Nicely written and clear.
It seems to me that fast is marketing language, not technical. And that it was fast compared to some specific implementations of bindings that predated it in a context with similar assumptions about SPA architecture, but that it is not fast in absolute terms.
Because there are a lot of caveats. What about the large amount of JS required up front and how that trades away startup performance? What about the need for SSR and the uncanny valley of hydration? What about the loss of HTML's historically demonstrated ability to stream and gracefully degrade? What about the poor performance of virtual DOM based libraries on mobile devices? Etc.
But that'd make for a much longer and less satisfying article.