And this is why we don't let people with absolutely no knowledge on benchmarking do benchmarks. This isn't measuring Next.js's performance, it's measuring the performance of sites that use Next.js. I could run my website on a bare metal server with a custom made, SIMD compatible, Assembly-written web server that only returns contents.html, if contents.html is 45MB including 32MB of tracking JS that has to run synchronously, my performance is going to be dogshit.
Proper benchmarks of Next would come from using the exact same site setup, the exact same resources served and comparing various sizes and complexities against other tools.
And I say this as a notorious Next.js (actually, *.js) hater.
Strong disagree on this one. We are talking about the difference between theoretical performance (what you COULD do) vs performance in reality (this is a dataset that measures all the various nextjs websites across the web and then compares them along well established benchmarks against the rest of the internet across time).
One of those two things is infinitely more valuable than the other.
ohgodplsno|2 years ago
Proper benchmarks of Next would come from using the exact same site setup, the exact same resources served and comparing various sizes and complexities against other tools.
And I say this as a notorious Next.js (actually, *.js) hater.
mhoad|2 years ago
One of those two things is infinitely more valuable than the other.
kmlx|2 years ago
what about APIs, rendering engines, technology stack, replacement for next/image… the juicy stuff…