|
|
|
|
|
|
by nwienert
1001 days ago
|
|
|
Totally agree that partial hydration helps more than full hydration, but note that if you compared SSR vs RSC the charts they posted wouldn't look so impressive. Maybe I was too strong worded, but the point stands that without making it really clear they are "skipping a generation" basically, it makes their comparison look extremely favorable, whereas RSC actually has a big overhead: it serializes all props and the entire tree that's not hydrated into an arbitrary serialization format that JS then needs to parse and hydrate. They actually are far from as zero-cost as other partial hydration methods. And if you had compared SSR vs RSC you'd see that the numbers don't actually improve so much. So is it like 10/10 deceptive? No, but it's also a meme thats going around and not the first article to try and gain attention by conveniently leaving out of the title and most of the article that 80% of the gain they got was just going from client-only to server-rendered, and not actually RSC. I absolutely stand by it being deceptive, if only on a more annoying than actually harmful level. The graphs aren't comparing SSR to RSC, they're comparing the (comparatively much, much worse) client-only to RSC. |
|
|
That's what the article is about, isn't it? The gain comes from going from client-only to server-rendered. They did this using RSC. You could also do it using handlebars and jQuery if it was 2010 (with probably 100x better performance).
> if you had compared SSR vs RSC you'd see that the numbers don't actually improve so much
From the article: We saw a whopping 62% reduction in bundle size as well as as 63% improvement in Google's Speed Index. You would not get those gains by simply enabling SSR in an existing app, as the bundle size will remain the same. Unless.. you use Astro or RSC to enable SSR with partial hydration. Which is what they did.