Treating performance as a product: The technical story of Asana’s rewrite

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by riquito on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @03:41PM (#15127028)

It looks like a standard dark pattern in React, you are re-rendering more components than needed on certain inputs changes, you should ask him in which input he's typing, it would probably more useful than his user name

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by blub on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @04:11AM (#15130502)

Anti-pattern. Dark patterns are tricks used to manipulate users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by pspeter3 on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @04:57PM (#15127542)

Thanks for the advice. Do you agree a potential optimization would be using React component state instead of store state?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by mikewhy on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @06:06PM (#15128027)

You should use React.PureComponent whenever possible. And stateless functions always re-render. There's no chance of using "shouldComponentUpdate".

Using store state vs local state shouldn't matter much, as long as your components are pure and only pull what they need from the store.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by azinman2 on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @05:45PM (#15127872)

Not trying to start a flame war, but do you know for sure “he” is a “he”?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by twobyfour on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @06:29PM (#15128176)

You're right, it's not really germane to the primary topic of conversation in this thread, but thank you for noticing and pointing it out anyway. Fwiw, I'm a "she".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating performance as a product: The technical story of... by azinman2 on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @11:11PM (#15129463)

Why am I being down voted? If anything, my suspicion it was an assumption was validated, and 'women in tech' is topic-du-jour.

[ Parent | on HN ]