Re:The AI cost of JavaScript frameworks
by skrebbel on Sunday November 01, 2026 @03:55AM
(#50323766)
It scores well here because Astro is for “content-driven websites” and that’s what the benchmark app was. I’d be curious how different the results would be if the app was highly interactive, with nontrivial realtime/async stuff going on etc.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
And then you just use your favorite js framework with Astro and it will still be good. I use Astro with react and heroui a lot. Since the latter does not need any js for many components anymore you still get zero js builds unless you actually need interactivity.
Re:The AI cost of JavaScript frameworks
by OtherShrezzing on Monday November 02, 2026 @02:46AM
(#50334157)
I actually find that agents are not especially performant with the “use Astro plus whatever” approach.
They seem to struggle to reason about the boundary between the two.
Re:The AI cost of JavaScript frameworks
by iainmerrick on Monday November 02, 2026 @11:00AM
(#50338699)
I haven't found that. I use Astro + SolidJS and it seems to work very well.
I intentionally avoid hydration (which I've always found to be flaky) and hydration-based frameworks like SolidStart, so possibly that helps. Or maybe that's just my own bias!
Agreed. Go with solidstart (who just released a big V2 upgrade a few months back) if you want an extremely elegant solution to async, error handling and heavily concurrent behaviors.
Very easy to setup and way more readable than the equivalent React code.