Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by Touche | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

Touche·

Warning that Nuxt.js is almost 100k out of the box, making it unsuitable for mobile usage.

View on HN

Depending on what you're building, I don't find 100k to be that much .

It's not only filesize it's also what the browser must parse. Parsing huge files is not a great experience on mobile.

I'm trying to imagine what browser is so outdated that it struggles to parse 100kb of javascript

It's not the browser, it's the processor that's in most non-iPhones.

Samsung phones and Pixels aren’t that bad either. I am not saying it to be proud, but I tested our 3mb internal app with a 5 year old android phone, and worked.

The only time it was slow is if the browser itself was old (e.g. Chrome 44).

All browser processes 100KB of scripts just fine. And they process the scripts in the background. The HTML is already parsed and displayed.

For low end android devices on a network in rural areas, that's a lot.

I would guess that for the majority of JS-heavy websites, android users in rural areas probably do not make up that much of the target market.

It's unrelated to network conditions (those just make it worse). It's related to the processor in many mobile phones.

In what year, 2004? A single ad can take up that much space.

It runs just fine for my site, across browsers and OSes.

You're probably getting down-ranked by Google, they use performance as a metric.

And what is the best solution? Client Side Rendering is worse, because users see a blank page until the script is parsed. 100KB is actually desirable, because it's included Vue and Vuex out of the box.

The best solution is to not have as much JavaScript. Use a smaller framework. Use fewer dependencies. Lazy load things when you can.

The solution is to have a performance budget at the start of your project so things never get so bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com