I built the same app 10 times: Evaluating frameworks for mobile performance

Edit: Related post on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069

> This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s technofeudalism.

There are so many of these in the article. It's like a spit to the face

Alternatives are great for those without these kinds of constraints.

In which case, I rather use traditional Java and .NET frameworks with minimal JavaScript, if at all.

I've been there myself as a Dev and later on as a manager. You have to really watch out not getting locked into local minima here. In most cases its not bundle size that wins this but engineering an app that can gracefully work offline, either by having the user manually pre-load data or by falling back to good caches.

You’ve stopped caring because it. never. ends. Really.

At the end of the day there have been a lot of new things in web development but none of them are of such a significance that you’re missing out on anything by sticking with what works. I personally just like to go with a mature backend framework (usually Laravel or Django) and minimal JS on the frontend. I’ve tried many of the shiny new libraries but have not seen much reason to switch over.

But the same is true for the content itself, no business is paying you to actually build the same app 10x, especially so if it's something as trivial as a kanban board.

As a general challenge to people: write your article, then see if you can halve its length without losing much. If it felt too easy, repeat the process! There’s a family of well-known quotes that amount to “sorry for writing a long letter, I didn’t have time to write a short letter”. Concise expression is not the easiest, but very valuable. Many a 100-page technical book can be improved by reduction to a one-page non-prose overview/cheat sheet (perhaps using diagrams and tables, but consider going more freeform like you might on a whiteboard) plus a ten page abridged version.

I particularly like that (JSX aside) it's just JavaScript, not a separate language with its own compiler like Svelte (and by the sounds of it Marko, which I hadn't heard of before). You can split your app into JS modules, and those can all use Solid signals, even the internal bits that don't have their own UI.

As shown in the article, you can build ONCE an app that loads in milliseconds by just providing an url to any potential customer. It works on mobile and on desktop, on any operating system.

The native alternative requires:

- Multiple development for any platform you target (to be widely used you need *at least* ios, android, macOS and windows.) - Customers are required to download and install something before using your platform, creating additional friction.

And all of this to obtain at most 20-30ms better loading times?

There are plenty of cases where native makes sense and is necessary, but most apps have very little to gain at the cost of a massive increase in development resources.

Web deployment is easier, faster and cheaper.

Solid is great for raw rendering speed, but it hydrates just like react (unless you use an islands framework on top like astro which has its own limitations), while qwik and marko are resumable out of the box

There are also other solutions if you need to preserve the url that are cleaner than appending a query string, like etags

Vite gives you that behaviour out of the box.

As to why it is slow, my knowledge is super up-to-date (haven't kept up that well with recent updates), but in general the idea is:

- The React runtime itself is 40 kB so before doing anything (before rendering in CSR or before hydrating in SSR) you need to download the runtime first.

- Most frameworks have moved on to use signals to manage state updates. When state change, observers of that state will be notified and the least amount of code will be run before updating the DOM surgically. React instead re-executes the code of entire component trees, compares the result with the current DOM and then applies changes. This is a lot more work and a lot slower. Over time techniques have been developed in React to mitigate this (Memoization, React Compiler, etc.), but it still does a lot more work than it needs to, and these techniques are often not needed in other frameworks because they do a lot less work by default.

The js-framework-benchmark [1] publishes benchmarks testing hundreds of frameworks for every Chrome release if you're interested in that.

[1]: https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/2025/table...

The other thing is that React is too big in terms of kBs of JavaScript you have to download and then parse (and often, thanks to great React ecosystem, you use many other libraries). But that's just another trade-off: it's the price you pay for great backwards compatibility (e.g. you can still use React Class components, you don't have to use hooks, etc.).

But this mostly applies to subsequent re-renders, while things mentioned in the article are more about initial render, and I'm not exactly sure why does React suffer there. I believe React can't skip VDOM on the server, while Vue or Solid use compiled templates that allow them to skip that and render directly to string, so maybe it's partially that?

however, React didn't copy from others, so it got slower than "competition"

> Here’s where this gets bigger than framework choice. When you ship a native app to the App Store or Google Play instead of building a web app, you’re not just making a technical decision. You’re accepting a deal that would’ve been unthinkable twenty years ago. Apple and Google each take up to 30% of every transaction (with exceptions depending on program and category). They set rules. They decide what you can ship. They can revoke your access tomorrow with no recourse. You have no alternative market. You can’t even compete on price because the fee is baked into many transactions.

But the vast majority do not. And this haranguing is an opportunity / defensible position to put more efforts and resources into performances. If nothing else, think of it as a Trojan horse to make software suck less.

"the web is mobile" = strictly "apps" ?

Your attitude is exactly why our supercomputers struggle to display even the simplest things with any kind of performance, and why pure text takes multiple seconds to appear

  dist/assets/app.css   98.33 kB │ gzip:  17.69 kB
  dist/assets/app.js    1,050.14 kB │ gzip: 244.88 kB
   built in 15.41s

If so, you have the extra cost, effort and bureaucracy of building and deploying to all the different app stores. Apple's App Store and Google Play each have various annoyances and limitations, and depending on your market there are plenty of other stores you might need to be in.

Sometimes you do need a native or native-feeling app, in which case a native wrapper for JS probably is a good idea, other times you want something lightweight that works everywhere with no deployment headaches.