Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Page Weight Matters (2012)

blog.chriszacharias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 171 posts

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#141

Post by fleaflicker »

Dru89 wrote: post #140
nostrademons wrote: post #56

When I joined Google in 2009, we were on the tail-end of a latency optimization kick that Larry had started in 2007. At the time, we had a budget of 20K gzipped for the entire search results page. I remember working on the visual redesign of 2010, where we had increased the page weight from 16K to 19K and there was much handwringing at the higher levels about how we were going to blow our entire latency budget on one…

It's somewhat tangential, but I'm curious what you mean by "HTML-aware templating language".

Closure templates probably https://developers.google.com/closure/templates/

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#142

Post by lacksconfidence »

Dru89 wrote: post #140
nostrademons wrote: post #56

When I joined Google in 2009, we were on the tail-end of a latency optimization kick that Larry had started in 2007. At the time, we had a budget of 20K gzipped for the entire search results page. I remember working on the visual redesign of 2010, where we had increased the page weight from 16K to 19K and there was much handwringing at the higher levels about how we were going to blow our entire latency budget on one…

It's somewhat tangential, but I'm curious what you mean by "HTML-aware templating language".

I'm not op, but I think this would be like xhp or jsx. Really it's any templating language that works closer to the DOM level and can perfom optimizations like understanding which close tags don't need to be output

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#143

Post by lacksconfidence »

4ad wrote: post #79
kuschku wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, http://google.com/custom still loads instantly ;)

Wow, THANK YOU ! It blows my mind this is not advertised and not the default.

I'm curious, why would this be the default? For most users (the people not on HN) personalized search has increased the relevancy of results vs this.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#144

Post by nilved »

spenczar5 wrote: post #104
booohooo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All HTML tags that could be left unterminated were, Thanks for making the internet worse so you could make your precious little webpage fast to load.

The reason we make web pages is so they can be accessed, not so they fit some dubious image of technical purity. What they did seems fine to me.

Web standards are part of the reason why your web page can be accessed.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#145

Post by sosborn »

vans wrote: post #108
geocar wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know why readers complain. They wish you understood their perspective better. A significant problem is that content costs a certain amount of money to be produced, and web content is unable to command those prices. Ad fraud is a big part of it, and some of the companies in the best position to solve it (like Google) are benefitting so handsomely from ad fraud that I can't imagine them stopping it. Ad blockers wi…

I'm sorry, but watching an ad isn't just a payment like you do with money. It's a rape of your mind. It needs your personal data, to rape your brain deeper. So i block ads, not to see content, but because ads don't deserve to exist.

> It's a rape of your mind.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I have read this afternoon.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#146

Post by Cogito »

micampe wrote: post #122
booohooo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All HTML tags that could be left unterminated were, Thanks for making the internet worse so you could make your precious little webpage fast to load.

I wish HN prevented new accounts from commenting for one day unless verified by a mod.

I think the community moderation has done its job here, and the negatives from preventing new accounts from commenting wouldn't be worth the advantage.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#147

Post by userbinator »

This is a bit tangential, but how did we get from "size" to "weight"? It seems a bit of an odd phrasing to me. With the exception of ESL mistakes, I don't know of anyone or any software which refers to "file weight", for example.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#148

Post by dredmorbius »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #112
coldpie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Firefox users, is this better than NoScript for any reason?

For Firefox, the real comparisons are Request Policy and ublock (origin) in advanced mode (for chrome, umatrix). These do full third-party host whitelisting per domain. So every time you visit a website on a new domain, by default all requests to third parties are blocked. Then you spend a few minutes working out which ones are required. By comparison, noscript simply blocks javascript from third parties. It does inc…

uBlock and uMatrix are two separate extensions. Both are available for both Chrome and Firefox.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#149

Post by nostrademons »

fleaflicker wrote: post #141
Dru89 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's somewhat tangential, but I'm curious what you mean by "HTML-aware templating language".

Closure templates probably https://developers.google.com/closure/templates/

It wasn't Closure Templates - those are what's used on the Apps side of Google (GMail, Google+, Docs, etc.). The technology in question lies in a grey area as far as confidentiality goes...it's been mentioned once in a recruiting presentation and there are references to it in other Google open-source projects...but I figure I would be safer by not naming it.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#150

Post by nostrademons »

nilved wrote: post #144
spenczar5 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we make web pages is so they can be accessed, not so they fit some dubious image of technical purity. What they did seems fine to me.

Web standards are part of the reason why your web page can be accessed.

The HTML5 spec is very explicit about which tags are auto-closed, and it is neither a parse nor validation error if those tags are omitted.
Post reply on HN