back

by ksec·13y ago·view on hn ↗
I agree. I would love to see some article on What TurboLinks actually breaks and How to avoid it. As much as the world love JS and Client Side Rendering. My Experience is that most of these people are either designing it with Chrome in Mind ( And hell yes they are ) or People using other browsers with a single tab at a time. ( Tell me if any single developer test their website in a Multi Tab environment )

Having JS heavy web page will slow down the browsers. That even includes Chrome, you just need a larger number of tabs. On Firefox a few JS heavy site with a slow computer will make your site experience sucks.

Although not a single user would blame the site ( It is always the browsers' fault. ) but to me, most of the time, the less JS the better.

Discourse is pretty fast, but to say 300K zipped JS file is peanuts just doesn't cut it for me ( How about 100K? That is peanuts. ) And again, slow JS execution and loading is something i have zero control of.

1 comments
> I would love to see some article on What TurboLinks actually breaks and How to avoid it.

The big change is that instead of getting a clean slate every request, you now have one, long-running JavaScript environment. That's where Turbolinks derives its speed from, but it's the biggest change, and this difference in assumption has been where the issues have popped up.

Honestly, I have not followed turbolinks' development very much, so I'd look through the Issues if I were you to get a better idea of what kinds of things have cropped up so far.

> Discourse is pretty fast, but to say 300K zipped JS file is peanuts just doesn't cut it for me

Sure. I think you'd be surprised how quickly you can get up to 300k of assets in a site, though. Plus, you're only fetching it once, it's all cached afterwards. Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, the practice beats the theory. Turbolinks and Ember have both been show to speed up web sites in practice.