Remix clone Hacker News

What do you mean by "lighter than a React button"? Do you mean lighter than the entire React runtime, plus a React button?

If so, that's somewhat disingenuous because even though a page with a single button would require the entire runtime, a second React button would be significantly cheaper than that.

▲

tipiirai 7 days ago | parent [-]

Yes. React runtime included. Benchmark and details here: https://nuejs.org/docs/react-button-vs-nue.html

▲

Fulgen 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

As the previous commenter said - you don't need a new runtime instance per button, so the comparison doesn't really work (for the smallest binary size, you could provide a native application doing the bare minimum to display the UI too, if the platform has an OS-provided UI framework).

It's still a neat toolkit, since not every website needs a big framework - but comparing runtime sizes is like choosing C over C++ because a `int main() { printf("Hello World\n"); }` binary is smaller.

	▲	audunw 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think it's relevant in the sense that it shows if you're building a simple app, there's a lot of overhead. It doesn't claim that you're going to get that overhead for every time you instance a button. I don't see how anyone would think that. I think the comparison works fairly well. It should be clear to everyone that it compares apples and oranges, since it's two different kind of apps it's comparing. So it makes you think. If they just compared the size of the framework itself, or a single button vs a single button, you may think "oh but as soon as you add any kind of complicated code, there will probably be so much boilerplate with Nue that it'll end up being bigger"..

▲

muspimerol 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This comparison is disingenuous and off-putting. When I read "a React button" I assume you are talking about `<button>` and the React runtime, not some third party libraries.