Next.js vs. Vite – Worth migrating to Vite? - YouTube
Migrating from Next.JS to Vite: Is It Worth the Switch?In this episode, we dive deep into our migration from Next.JS to Vite for an extensive React applicati...
Click
Use
to move to a smaller summary and to move to a larger one
Migration from Next.js to V and its Metrics and Challenges
- Context: Application built in Next.js with TypeScript, C Zoo, and Tailwind
- Migration: Took six hours, which was less than 1% of the time taken to build the application
- Metrics:
- Build Time: V was 30% faster than Next.js with Turbo pack
- Bundle Size: Only a 10% difference in favor of V
- Hot Module Replacement (HMR): V was 70% faster than Next.js without Turbo pack
- Reasons to Migrate: Improved developer experience and slightly faster CI/CD build times, but not a significant improvement to warrant changing ecosystems
- Challenges during Migration:
- Change from Webpack to ESM (ECMAScript Modules) required refactoring of import statements and file loading
- Replacement of Next.js components and hooks, such as the router, which worked differently from React Router and required rebuilding of components
- Resolving a large bundle size issue, which took some time but was straightforward for experienced front-end developers.
Considerations for Migrating to V from Next.js
- Migrating from Next.js to V was straightforward, but certain components required updates.
- Migrating was easier because we were using client-side components and were not dependent on server-side generated components.
- If migrating to V, it is important to assess the amount of server-side generation and intertwined functions already present in the codebase.
- Starting a new project? Consider if you want to go in a server-side or full-stack direction. Next.js may be a better pick for a more agnostic and separation of concerns approach, while V may be better for a more open development approach.
- It is beneficial to do a test run to determine if migrating to V is feasible by pulling over some pages and components to see if they work.
- We migrated to V but have not yet decided if we will stay with it.
- V offers more agnosticism and separation of concerns, which is beneficial for our project with a separated backend, multiple clients, and a GraphQL API.
- V feels newer and more modern due to its usage of ES modules.
- Next.js may be a better choice for building a SAS platform for the CMS market.
- Further assessment is needed to determine if V is as good as Next.js when it comes to server-side generation.
Upcoming Decision and Invitation to Read Detailed Blog Post
- The decision about the next steps is still pending and will be made in the next few days or next week.
- A detailed explanation of the current situation will be shared on Sunday in a blog post.
- The blog post link will be available in the show notes for reference.
- The host invites viewers to read the detailed version and participate in the discussion.
Migration from Next.js to V: Summary and Assessment
- Migration from Next.js to V took six hours, which was less than 1% of the time taken to build the application.
- V showed improvement in build time (30% faster), bundle size (10% smaller), and hot module replacement (70% faster) compared to Next.js.
- Reasons to migrate included improved developer experience and slightly faster CI/CD build times.
- Challenges during migration included refactoring import statements, rebuilding Next.js components, and resolving bundle size issues.
- Migrating to V was straightforward for client-side components but required assessing the amount of server-side generation in the codebase.
- Next.js may be a better choice for a more agnostic and separation of concerns approach, while V may be better for a more open development approach.
- A test run should be done to determine feasibility before fully migrating to V.