21–30 of 467 posts
The average Web page now does more than the average Doom install, I don't see the relevance of this. Although I get really annoyed when I visit a blog post whose page is 100x larger than Dostoevsky's novels in .txt format. On my blog ( https://pljns.com/blog/ ), JQuery and genericons are often my largest file transfers, but I still clock under 500kb.
Oh, you just want to add a class to the element? \ adds whole jQuery\ That's what's wrong with the web. Oh, and you need a loop? \ adds underscore.js\
If your playing with larger and less 'standard' library's then that's a different story.
Oh, you just want to add a class to the element? \ adds whole jQuery\ That's what's wrong with the web. Oh, and you need a loop? \ adds underscore.js\
I recently tried to force myself not to use any libraries for a simple site. After a while I realised I had so much re-invention of stuff (AJAX in particular is madness without a library) that I ended up adding Zepto
With all the crap they're adding in ES6 you would have hoped they would add an ajax function at least
So indeed, there is a huge optimization opportunity of having a stricter error model.
Also, I'm really wondering how much battery could be saved when surfing such pages.
Also I'm sure there is a lot of potential going in the pre-parsed document model. But that's a next level kind of engineering I guess.
If you want your page to load fast, the overall "size" of the page shouldn't be at the top of your list of concerns. Try reducing the # of requests, first. Combine and minify your javascript, use image sprites, etc.
Oh, you just want to add a class to the element? \ adds whole jQuery\ That's what's wrong with the web. Oh, and you need a loop? \ adds underscore.js\
I hoped with page performance becoming a ranking factor, this would change, if only for a tiny bit. But I see very slow brand websites still ranked higher then the highly optimized indie website, so that didn't work.
In the late 00s I remember turning on an old computer with a 650 MHz Athlon CPU and being surprised that web browsing performance in Firefox wasn't bad. Now if I try that with a 1 GHz Pentium 3, performance is absolutely horrible. Is this why?
Oh, you just want to add a class to the element? \ adds whole jQuery\ That's what's wrong with the web. Oh, and you need a loop? \ adds underscore.js\
jQuery is not that large and very likely to be cached an a users machine. So, it's IMO disingenuous to harp on it. If your playing with larger and less 'standard' library's then that's a different story.
I'm skeptical that developers talking to each other about how bad web bloat is will change anything. They will still face the same incentives in terms of ad revenue, costs of optimization, etc. Here's a random idea that might have more potential: create an adblocker browser plugin that also colors URLs based on how slow they are expected to load, e.g., smoothly from blue to red. The scores could be centrally calculat…
Give some kind of reminder to both users and developers about how slow their sites are. Those with the slowest websites probably won't like it too much initially, but it's going to be better for all of us in the long term.
http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/03/native-ad-blockin...
Before everyone jumps onto the JQuery/Bootstrap/etc sucks bandwagon, just a reminder that the minified jquery from cdnjs is 84.1kb. Bootstrap is 43.1kb. If you want your page to load fast, the overall "size" of the page shouldn't be at the top of your list of concerns. Try reducing the # of requests, first. Combine and minify your javascript, use image sprites, etc.