Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sarahhudson 1458 days ago
> I went to the Next.js website, looked at some of the logos of the companies using the framework, and started typing their domains into PageSpeed Insights.

This is going to be heavily conflated with so much other stuff that is nothing to do with SSR, that it is useless.

It is probably more a test of the underlying server performance. And whether a CDN is used (if you use Next with Vercel you will get a CDN, but not everyone does necessarily use Vercel).

Also I am guessing PageSpeed doesn't wait for angular to do the client side render? So yes <html><script ..></html> will load pretty fast.

Also a lot of NextJS people are going to be correlated with 'build it and ship it quick' bent, and may not tune performance up. I imagine Angular people are more 'long term product' people, in general.

Also if you are doing a SPA on Next, you can set up static file generation if rendered page = f(url) not f(url, user_state). Then those can be geographically cached across a CDN. You can do that in a way that say you have product_list.csv, you can build out the static site.

I just feel Angular vs. Next = apples vs. orange trees.
1 comments
toddmorey 1458 days ago
In production marketing sites, I've found over and over that it's usually 3rd party javascript that has the most brutal impact on performance. Or put another way: it's less the particular framework you pick and more how you choose to put it to use. (To help address this, the Builder.io team is doing some amazing and super clever work with a library called Party Town that relocates resource intensive scripts into a web worker to free up the main thread.)

As others are saying, it's silly to compare frameworks unless it's across projects loading and doing basically the same things. So many ancillary decisions impact the performance.

* Not arguing in favor of frameworks here—less javascript is always better! But this comparison method makes no sense to me.

link