1. 9
  1.  

  2. 5

    Just as with the 10th percentile, Angular and React driven sites tend to distance themselves from others at the 90th percentile, and not in a very flattering way. … At the 90th percentile, Angular sites ship 141% more bytes on mobile and 159% more bytes on desktop. Sites with React ship 73% more bytes on desktop and 58% more on mobile.

    How much of this is confounded by what people are using these for? I suspect that the 90th percentile Angular/React are SPAs, where the point is the interactivity, while almost all of the sole jquery use is to augment an otherwise static site. The causation would go the other way: people use A/R because they need a lot of JavaScript. This would also explain

    sites with jQuery detected spend much less time on JavaScript work on the main thread than the other three analyzed.

    The other three spend more time on JavaScript because they’re doing the kind of work that justifies using a framework in the first place. And it explains

    sites using React perform worse when React is the only framework in use.

    It’d make sense if people were mostly using React and jquery together when they’re both providing small bits of added functionality, which IMO is a better explanation than the given one (people using both are in transition (which raises the question of why mixed angular/jquery is slower than pure angular)).

    (Another confounding factor: what js frameworks are bundled with what server frameworks? It could be that everybody using a Rails generator gets angular by default or something, so you’re partially measuring the kinds of stuff people make in each type of framework.)

    1. 3

      I’m really don’t understand compliance. If it’s a simple blog us will be over kill. But if you are building something like flight search engine you want use framework. Other wise you end up writing your own buggy version.