| 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... |