I just love how someone pulls up their own tool-of-choice, sees that the site responded wonderfully on 3-out-of-4 metrics, and then implies that I must not be a "web dev" if the site didn't ace all 4. This is so perfectly indicative of what I see from sooooooo many other devs.
While I care just as much about performance as any web dev (although... I guess I'm not one), I can't really validate this tool's performance metrics. It claims that TTI is a full 7.5 seconds. And, I'm sorry (not sorry), but that's just not accurate. There's nothing on that page that requires anywhere near a 7.5-second wait before you can interact with it.
I just pulled the page up on GTmetrix, which shows a TTI of 1.7 seconds. Where in the heck Lighthouse gets 7.5 seconds from, I'll never know. Nor do I particularly care.
I do notice that, on the various performance reports from multiple sites, everything is basically pushed up by 2 seconds, because there's a 2-second fade-in on the page. I could remove that, just to make someone satisfied that I'm actually a web dev. But, umm... nope.
The simple fact is that most of the primary optimizations you need to do to a base React site to get it run blazingly fast require you to set up a custom pipeline on your own server. For example, you can run the app through a static site generator, but that's not going to happen while the site is hosted on AWS's Amplify. I'm not going to configure (and pay for) a custom EC2 instance just so I can make someone feel better about a 42 on Lighthouse.
FWIW, I just ran Lighthouse in the browser, and it gives adamdavis.code/home a performance score of 90 on desktop with a TTI of 0.6 seconds. On mobile, it gives a performance score of 64 - not amazing, but a lot better than 42. In that report, it still shows the mobile TTI as 5.9 seconds - which, quite frankly, doesn't really make much sense.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
If you’re a web dev, and you insist on submitting a website rather than a conventional resumé, you should make sure that it at least performs well.
lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appsp...
Maybe I’m missing something, but a 42 on performance isn’t really a great sign.
I just love how someone pulls up their own tool-of-choice, sees that the site responded wonderfully on 3-out-of-4 metrics, and then implies that I must not be a "web dev" if the site didn't ace all 4. This is so perfectly indicative of what I see from sooooooo many other devs.
While I care just as much about performance as any web dev (although... I guess I'm not one), I can't really validate this tool's performance metrics. It claims that TTI is a full 7.5 seconds. And, I'm sorry (not sorry), but that's just not accurate. There's nothing on that page that requires anywhere near a 7.5-second wait before you can interact with it.
I just pulled the page up on GTmetrix, which shows a TTI of 1.7 seconds. Where in the heck Lighthouse gets 7.5 seconds from, I'll never know. Nor do I particularly care.
I do notice that, on the various performance reports from multiple sites, everything is basically pushed up by 2 seconds, because there's a 2-second fade-in on the page. I could remove that, just to make someone satisfied that I'm actually a web dev. But, umm... nope.
The simple fact is that most of the primary optimizations you need to do to a base React site to get it run blazingly fast require you to set up a custom pipeline on your own server. For example, you can run the app through a static site generator, but that's not going to happen while the site is hosted on AWS's Amplify. I'm not going to configure (and pay for) a custom EC2 instance just so I can make someone feel better about a
42on Lighthouse.FWIW, I just ran Lighthouse in the browser, and it gives adamdavis.code/home a performance score of
90on desktop with a TTI of 0.6 seconds. On mobile, it gives a performance score of64- not amazing, but a lot better than42. In that report, it still shows the mobile TTI as 5.9 seconds - which, quite frankly, doesn't really make much sense.