michael/astro
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

[ci] yarn format

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
FredKSchott 2021-08-16 16:12:07 +00:00 committed by GitHub Actions
parent 6322c99623
commit 71e396c3cc
1 changed files with 7 additions and 8 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
docs/src/pages/comparing-astro-vs-other-tools.md
View file

@ -32,8 +32,7 @@ Docusaurus doesn't support partial hydration, and instead makes the user load an
- **Docusaurus performance score**: 26 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocusaurus.io%2Fdocs)
- **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [docusaurus.io/docs](https://docusaurus.io/docs) loads **238kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (67% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [docusaurus.io/docs](https://docusaurus.io/docs) loads **238kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (67% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.
## Elder.js vs. Astro
@ -45,9 +44,10 @@ Elder.js is unique on this list as the only other site builder to support [parti
Elder.js uses a custom routing solution that may feel unfamiliar to new developers. Astro uses [file-based routing](/core-concepts/routing) which should feel familiar to anyone coming from Next.js, SvelteKit, and even other static site builders like Eleventy.
Elder.js was designed to run on large websites, and claims to build one website of ~20k pages in less than 10 minutes (on a modest VM). At the time of writing, Astro builds ~1k pages in 66 seconds but has not yet been tested on 20k+ page projects. Astro is still in early beta, and matching Elder.js build speed is a goal for Astro v1.0.
Elder.js was designed to run on large websites, and claims to build one website of ~20k pages in less than 10 minutes (on a modest VM). At the time of writing, Astro builds ~1k pages in 66 seconds but has not yet been tested on 20k+ page projects. Astro is still in early beta, and matching Elder.js build speed is a goal for Astro v1.0.
Elder.js supports both Static Site Generation (SSG) and Server-Side Rendering (SSR). Today, Astro only supports Static Site Generation (SSG).
#### Comparing Eleventy vs. Astro Performance
Conceptually, Eleventy is aligned with Astro's "minimal client-side JavaScript" approach to web development. Eleventy and Astro both offer similar, zero-JavaScript-by-default performance baselines.
@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ Eleventy achieves this by pushing you to avoid JavaScript entirely. Eleventy sit
By contrast, Astro automatically builds your client-side JavaScript & CSS for you. Astro automatically strips unnecessary JavaScript from the page, hydrating only the individual components that need it. This feature is called [partial hydration](/core-concepts/component-hydration). While it is possible to achieve this yourself in Eleventy, Astro offers it built in by default.
## Gatsby vs. Astro
[Gatsby](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/) is a popular website & application framework for React.
@ -96,7 +95,7 @@ Gatsby has a great plugin ecosystem, which could make make Gatsby a better choic
- **Gatsby performance score**: 64 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gatsbyjs.com%2Fdocs%2Fquick-start%2F)
- **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [gatsbyjs.com/docs](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/docs/quick-start/) loads **417kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (81% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [gatsbyjs.com/docs](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/docs/quick-start/) loads **417kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (81% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.
## Hugo vs. Astro
@ -176,7 +175,7 @@ Next.js has great built-in image optimizations, which could make Next.js a bette
- **Next.js performance score**: 59 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnextjs.org%2Fdocs%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nextjs.org/docs](https://nextjs.org/docs/getting-started) loads **463kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nextjs.org/docs](https://nextjs.org/docs/getting-started) loads **463kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.
## Nuxt vs. Astro
@ -203,7 +202,7 @@ Nuxt has great built-in image optimizations, which could make Nuxt a better choi
- **Nuxt performance score**: 48 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnuxtjs.org%2Fdocs%2F2.x%2Fget-started%2Finstallation)
- **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nuxtjs.org/docs](https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/get-started/installation) loads **469kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, *after* first load.
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nuxtjs.org/docs](https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/get-started/installation) loads **469kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, _after_ first load.
## VuePress vs. Astro
@ -224,4 +223,4 @@ VuePress doesn't support partial hydration, and instead makes the user load and
- **Vuepress performance score**: 63 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvuepress.vuejs.org%2Fguide%2F)
- **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) loads **166kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (53% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) loads **166kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (53% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.