I've audited a lot of large-scale server-rendered single-page-app sites in the past several weeks and it's clear that 1: frameworks finally serving HTML up-front is a welcome (long overdue) change, and yet 2: chasing it with a typical 1-to-6+ megabytes of "rehydrating" JavaScript means a lot of people are getting a site that may look usable but feels very broken. You can find them in the p25 that aren't getting "good" core web vitals.

NYC Accessibility people!! My team at Squarespace is hiring. DM me to chat if this sounds like it could be you!

Squarespace

Jobs — Squarespace

Coming up on 10 years since this Filament Group study by [@johnbender](

Mathstodon

asker the gauche (@johnbender@mathstodon.xyz)

2 Posts, 3 Following, 4 Followers · Formal verification researcher at Sandia National Labs. Much too excited about bikes. Bread is my loaf language.

) measured popular JS frameworks' best-case initial render time and demonstrated that the performance cost and fragility of client-rendering HTML was too high. It took so long to get frameworks to prioritize it but it really does feel like we're in a better place today. SSR, SSG, and selective client rendering are popularly touted as first-class features and the way forward

Filament Group

Researching the Performance costs of JavaScript MVC Frameworks | Filament Group, Inc., Boston, MA

Read this page on the Filament Group website