DEdenar90·Apr 20, 2017Submission
Show HN: Progressive web metrics at your fingertipz
1 points · Open discussionpaulirish
pwmetrics
TypeScript2016–2017
paulirish / pwmetrics
pwmetrics
Progressive web metrics at your fingertipz
2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.2KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Progressive web metrics at your fingertipz
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by week2 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2016-12-08 19:38:59 UTC to 2017-04-20 20:13:34 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5 | 2016-12-05 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-12-12 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Dec 12 | 2016-12-12 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-12-19 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 19 | 2016-12-19 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-12-26 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 26 | 2016-12-26 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-02 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2 | 2017-01-02 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-09 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 9 | 2017-01-09 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-16 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 16 | 2017-01-16 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-23 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 23 | 2017-01-23 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-30 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 30 | 2017-01-30 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-02-06 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 6 | 2017-02-06 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-02-13 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 13 | 2017-02-13 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 20 | 2017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 27 | 2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 6 | 2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 13 | 2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-03-20 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 20 | 2017-03-20 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-03-27 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 27 | 2017-03-27 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-04-03 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 3 | 2017-04-03 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-04-10 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 10 | 2017-04-10 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-04-17 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 17 | 2017-04-17 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-04-24 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
What Hacker News says
2 sourcesI actually wrote a separate benchmark suite [1] that uses Paul Irish's pwmetrics [2], so using real Chrome to check render performance. From those numbers, Styletron performed really well in terms of time to first paint and time to first meaningful paint. But I didn't include it in the blog post because I wasn't sure how best to separate the transfer time factor (pwmetrics is set up to throttle network speed) since Styletron critical CSS was so much smaller.
[1] https://github.com/rtsao/styletron/tree/master/packages/benc...
[2] https://github.com/paulirish/pwmetrics
In Show HN: Styletron – Virtual CSS