But that's not the javascript, it's how it's used (react or whatever)
You can write terrible non-performant code in assembly and C, and perfectly speedy pages in html and javascript (say the page you're on at the moment).
You wouldn't write a new cutting edge video codec in javascript - not one you wanted to use anyway - but given that we had performant guis running on 286s at 12MHz, Javascript being 1/10th the speed of C isn't the problem.
You know that CPU-bound performance would take a really small fragment of those straw man 10 seconds loading a page, right?
If you think 10 seconds is a strawman, clearly you haven’t used sites like GitHub on a cheap device.
But that's not the javascript, it's how it's used (react or whatever)
You can write terrible non-performant code in assembly and C, and perfectly speedy pages in html and javascript (say the page you're on at the moment).
You wouldn't write a new cutting edge video codec in javascript - not one you wanted to use anyway - but given that we had performant guis running on 286s at 12MHz, Javascript being 1/10th the speed of C isn't the problem.
Case in point, github is server side rendered. I don't think it uses any client side framework.
1 reply →
> “Only” 5 times slower? Imagine if every website that takes 10 seconds to load instead took 2 seconds…
All you need to know about the level of knowledge of average JS hater/muh native performance.