[protonimitate]

How so? Anything < 1 sec of load time on average is "good enough" for 90% of use cases.

The only way you could possibly quantify this is by collecting data on # of conversions between the "optimized static site" and this react boiler plate.

Spoiler: the time you waste collecting this data could be spent working on an MVP that this landing page is supporting ;)

[tomgp]

The question is; sub 1sec for who? A lot of people aren’t going to be loading that page over the same quality of network connection as your average hacker news reader. Many’s the time I’ve cursed web developers when I’ve been on a train trying to book a restaurant or some other simple task that doesn’t need animation or images or video.

[ivanhoe]

Problem with that approach is that 1 second on his connection is not necessarily equal to 1s on mine or your connection. So we'd need to see the expected traffic and then discuss "the average time" that makes sense, the speed for the target group.

[drusepth]

Please don't take this as argument, but do you have any studies/sources that support anything <1 sec of load time being "good enough" for 90% of use cases?

Maybe I'm naive, 90% seems like an extremely high estimation to me.

[peterangular]

It's an over-generalization and I'll throw my own anecdata in here from ecommerce: I've seen MAJOR improvements with conversions when I can get something from a 1s load-time down to <250ms. I don't have any published studies out there on this but you can definitely find TONS of data on faster load increasing customer interaction/conversions.

Specifically, it's an interface-to-interface thing as much as a first load experience... if a customer can browse my stores with near-instant loading of product pages (or maybe even pre-loaded) they are more likely to look at more products. If they're more likely to look at more products, they're more likely to buy, etc etc. Sure 750ms doesn't SEEM like much, but what about someone who's shopping for a formal dress? They may be looking at 20+ unique SKUs within a shopping experience so take 20 * 750ms and there ya go.

We don't control things like network conditions, etc. and even in 2020 we must be respectful to the end client in regards to transmitted data to run an experience.

I know I didn't link to any studies here so it's all moot, but I'm just sharing my in-industry experience with optimization to illustrate that lots of people don't settle for "90% of the time <1s is good enough".

[protonimitate]

I probably should have just said "a majority", but Google has a good resource on page load studies[1].

"DoubleClick by Google found 53% of mobile site visits were abandoned if a page took longer than 3 seconds to load."

Maybe my logic is wrong, but considering 3 seconds is the "tipping point" for more abandonments than not, anything under 1 second is "good enough" imo.

Again, I don't have data for this, but I would suspect that the difference between 100ms and 900ms won't impact business metrics in any meaningful way. Or at least enough to warrant the "react is overkill" argument.

Is react more than necessary? sure. Does it matter? I don't believe so. Whatever gets your landing page/product in front of people faster (from a development and time to ship POV, not just page loading) is what matters.

The bigger point is that particularly on HN, a lot of comments love to point out how "react is overkill", but it's mostly just a knee-jerk reaction. It seems that lately anytime anything to do with React is posted here, it's immediately met with "why react?" comments. In some cases they're warranted, but for the most part its just boring conversation that cares more about being pedantic than helping out. Particularly for this example, this is just one option that someone might want to utilize. It should be up to the user to weigh the pros and cons of picking this template. I don't see why the entire conversation should be dominated by "static sites are better" rhetoric.

[1] https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/w...