React/competitor performance that people use to compare frameworks is about rendering performance. E.g. React takes 100ms longer to rerender 10,000 elements (random numbers for the example). In these situations the actual real world difference will be negligible.
Site performance is much more API based, and that’s the same regardless of frontend. React has more library solutions to optimize the UX though, as it’s the most mature and popular.
Exactly. And those API calls are going out over the network. The caller has to serialize the request into text, the API implementation has to deserialize the text into values that can be passed to a local implementation function and then the API implementation has to take the result and serialize it into the return. Finally the caller has to process the result.
That's the simple case. Things get even more involved when you start using HTTPS to secure the data in transit on the channel and using OAuth to secure the access to the API. What appears to be a simple API call turns into a lot of back-and-forths with multiple servers - with all the network latency that entails. Then developers complain their website is slow. Gee, I wonder why!
Not exactly true about "performance is more API based".
Everything adds up. 400ms here, 700 there. Websites can be slow even before api calls are triggered or on the middle of them, or while the results from api responses are presented.
Rendering performance can definitely add up, but rarely do React websites render so many elements that you get to 700ms. Once you do, you can nearly always fix that with an performance optimizations iteration. I reckon that issue is just as likely in all frameworks, and less likely to be about React using 0.2ms (or something like that) longer per element to render before optimizations.
People are tempted to use react in the animation frame render loop, and these comparisons often seem to assume that that is the level of performance we need to be targeting - enough to hold 60 fps. But react’s not a good fit there. Other animation techniques are better for a vast number of reasons.
Wow this is the worst take about customer service I have ever seen by a company. You cause huge issues for business with the touch of a button, and when they require help and don’t think the cause was acceptable behavior, they’re whining? Just wow.
I've removed the word "whining" but to be clear I was not talking about the person who posted on HN that they had a problem. I immediately jumped on their problem when I saw it and I've ended up spending almost all morning on it. I took the long threads personally and should not have done.
10% globally and 30% of US traffic. Probably. Google has more aggregate users and traffic, and they're also world renowned for not having any customer service short of "blowing up on twitter" or getting lucky here on HN.
> I think the helmets would just be too much of a hassle
While probably true, I think the emphasis is misplaced. The primary reason helmets aren’t as encouraged as elsewhere is the immense bike infrastructure that keeps cyclists safe. The risk is much much much smaller than in car focussed places.
It's real because our laws (including those of European countries) make it real.
Some seem to assume there's some general "If it's American it's invalid" law in Europe. This is not the case. With the exception of specific laws, such as GDPR regarding privacy, this is a perfectly valid clause.
Copyright law can be a criminal matter in my country and then it will be handled by a Swedish court. You cannot just write a contract which makes you immune to criminal prosecution.
In Sweden you can set the jurisdiction for civil disputes in a contract.
Which is what everyone is talking about here.
For criminal, there is only jurisdiction in Sweden if the crime happened in Sweden. I would need you to link me a case where Sweden criminally convicted someone for copyright infringement who wasn't Swedish and wasn't in Sweden.
For example, I am not Swedish and do not travel there. Sweden has no power to enforce its laws against me. No matter what I do, I shouldn't be able to be convicted of criminal copyright infringent in Sweden.
This is mostly a developer mistake, not that of a designer. You can easily make buttons appear as links, so there's no excuse not to handle this the correct way.
You also have to disconnect styling from HTML tags for your headings to get the h1>h2>h3 order semantically correct for accessibility and SEO.
Regardless, I think designers making links appear as buttons is bad practice, but you usually don't have much influence over design as a developer.
