The browser support is good enough for our customer base, as it works across all operating systems and mobile devices, and we can fall back for asm.js for IE11.
A good rule of thumb is to apply this technique for objects of 10 kB or larger — but as always with performance advice, measure the actual impact before making any changes.
Although it may still not be worth it. At work I have this hand-rolled utility for mocking the backend using a .har file(which is a JSON). I use it to reproduce bugs found by the testers, who are kind enough to supply me both with such a file and a screencast.
On a MacBook Pro a 2.6MB .har file takes about 140ms to parse and process.
It also allows you to overlay local files, so you can change code while reusing server responses.
I switched to Arq once I had multiple computers to backup and paying by the GB for me is cheaper than paying per computer.
From a client-side perspective, Arq and Backblaze each have their own pros and cons.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
Also "vs code" trends higher than "visual studio code", so take all of these results with a pinch of salt.