Remix clone Hacker News

To be honest, I am very confused with this benchmark. It is misleading.

What is the actually size of the production build portion only for that button part? Because I think that the ShadCN button source code is not equal in size for the button that client downloads in production environment. Especially if you have SSR.

▲

hombre_fatal 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you look at the demo, all of the payload comes from react and the tailwindcss classes that the shadcn button refers to.

It's dishonest to call this the payload of "one shadcn button" since it's basically all react/tailwindcss fixed cost and not literally a shadcn button.

But still, that's a decently broad demo to fit in a small payload, so the exaggeration kinda takes away from that.

The main thing I care about in client development is the state management solution since that's where most of the complexity comes from, and it's what makes or breaks an approach. In React, I use MobX which I see as the holy grail.

Whether Nue is nice to use or not for me is gonna come down to how nice this is to work with: https://nuejs.org/docs/interactivity.html

▲

mvdtnz 3 days ago | parent [-]

> It's dishonest to call this the payload of "one shadcn button" since it's basically all react/tailwindcss fixed cost and not literally a shadcn button.

Does the ShadCN button work without paying that cost?

▲

hombre_fatal 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sure. If you just want the shadcn button by itself, it will generate this html: <button class="{tailwindcss classes}" />.

And it has a dependency on some common tailwindcss classes that will get injected into your bundle.

Most shadcn components depend on tailwindcss classes, and how the whole shtick works is that tailwindcss only includes in your bundle the classes that your components use across your app. Which is kind of a clever integration for a ui component 'package manager' for reducing bundle size.

But most importantly, consider that OP's demo has very minimal CSS because they aren't using a CSS framework, and that has nothing to do with their Nue framework. It's not like their Nue framework comes with an optimized answer to tailwindcss/shadcn; you have to bring your own solution.

So if you use tailwindcss/shadcn with React, you'd certainly use it with Nue.

What Nue should do instead is add libraries to either side necessary to reach parity with the other side. Nue has built-in routing, so it would be fair to add react-router-dom to the React side. And they wouldn't have 100 people calling them out for the dumb benchmark.

▲

jmaw 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you really going to build a site which just consists of a button?

▲

mvdtnz 3 days ago | parent [-]

If I'm working with a payload budget and I'm using React I guess so?

	▲	albedoa 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Stop. You really do not need to be acting like this.

▲

albedoa 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Your question is, incredibly, more dishonest than the original claim. Truly impressive.

	▲	mvdtnz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		What's dishonest about my question? Please keep your personal attacks to yourself.

▲

programmarchy 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems like you should be correct. A shadcn button is just react, tailwind, and @radix/react-slot. But if you simply create a new shadcn Next.js template (i.e. pnpm dlx shadcn@latest init) and add a button, the "First Load JS" is ~100kB. Maybe you could blame that on Next.js bloat and we should also compare it to a Vite setup, but it's still surprising.

▲

nicce 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, but my point is that you download the runtime and core of React/Tailwind just once for the whole web page and those should be removed from the test, or at least there should be comparison which includes the both cases.

You only need couple images on your webpage and that runtime size becomes soon irrelevant.

So the question is, that how much overhead are React/Tailwind CSS adding beyond that initial runtime size? If I have 100 different buttons, is it suddenly 10 000 kilobytes? I think it is not. This is the most fundamental issue on all the modern web benchmarking results. They benchmark sites that are no reflecting reality in any sense.

These frameworks are designed for content-heavy websites and the performance means completely different thing. If every button adds so much overhead, of course that would be a big deal. But I think they are not adding that much overhead.

▲

mvdtnz 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Yeah, but my point is that you download the runtime and core of React/Tailwind just once for the whole web page and those should be removed from the test, or at least there should be comparison which includes the both cases.

You think a test that is comparing the size of apps that use various frameworks should exclude the frameworks from the test? Then what is even being tested?

	▲	nicce 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Actual overhead when the site is used in reality? How much ovearhead are those 100 different buttons creating? What is the performance of state managing? What is the rendering performance in complex sites? How much size overhead are modular files adding? Is .jsx contributing more than raw HTML for page size? The library runtime bundle size is mostly meaningless, unless you want to provide static website with just text. And then you should not use any of these frameworks.