I still just don't get it. If I'm happily using Preact (especially SSR) what advantages am I supposed to get out of switching to WCs? Not performance. Preact is smaller than LitElement and SSR is unbeatable for FCP. Not "standardization" when React is more popular than WCs.
-
-
I think SSR is important, but really all content should be in light DOM for SEO anyway. Rehydration of shadow should be of lower importance.
-
Again, if the crawlers run script and understand Shadow DOM, what's the pressing need to contort ourselves around this circa-2013 story of how content should be structured?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There's no way to beat SSR for FCP, not even in principle. I'm totally on board with reducing the size of bundles, but we're really no better off with a big WC bundle that doesn't paint until it's interactive than we are with a giant Preact bundle.
-
I see so many sites blowing it thanks to SSR. You're in the dialed-in, tuned-up micro-group that isn't burning 500ms+ on the server for every round-trip thanks to SSR overhead because you know that to get the win your server-side has to *actually be fast*.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's a good debate. Is SSR "needed" because an app's JS is so large and slow? Or because of SEO? Or for improved first paint times? Either way each project may (or may not) have their reasons. I'll also say that it's nice we can build stencil's docs site with stencil.
-
Also, I'll be quick to say that prerendering (generate static html at build time that can be clientside hydrated) should be heavily investigated first, before looking into serverside-rendering (every http request hydrates for the user)
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.