Live data from Hacker News

The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

mobiforge.com

51–60 of 467 posts

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#51
post #36

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\

Imagine how fast the web would be if browser manufacturers could "approve" frameworks, and store them as a "standard library" of sorts. A global cache. Then you have ONE copy of jQuery for all sites on your machine. Wanting to use a framework shouldn't be discouraged. The issue here isn't developers trying to save time, the issue is the shitty tools.

[deleted]

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would help if the basic javascript api's were even vaguely useful 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

it's called the "fetch" API. Not sure if it's in ES6

ah awesome.

Now we just have to wait 5+years until it has 95% browser share :)

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#53
post #36

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\

Imagine how fast the web would be if browser manufacturers could "approve" frameworks, and store them as a "standard library" of sorts. A global cache. Then you have ONE copy of jQuery for all sites on your machine. Wanting to use a framework shouldn't be discouraged. The issue here isn't developers trying to save time, the issue is the shitty tools.

Look how long it took for browsers to kinda agree on how to interpret Javascript and HTML. Do you really want to add another way for browsers to behave differently?

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#54
post #36

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\

Imagine how fast the web would be if browser manufacturers could "approve" frameworks, and store them as a "standard library" of sorts. A global cache. Then you have ONE copy of jQuery for all sites on your machine. Wanting to use a framework shouldn't be discouraged. The issue here isn't developers trying to save time, the issue is the shitty tools.

Yeah, javascript historically lacks a stdlib and now it's so big that nobody could probably agree on one. Chalk another one for "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#56
post #49

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…

I would say that a possible solution is also to better rank websites that mention the checksums of their external resources and make web browsers keep them in cache much longer... if pretty much every website uses jQuery, perhaps we should ship jQuery with the web browser?

Common libraries and frameworks are usually loaded from a CDN. These should stay in the browser's cache for some time.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#57
If web bloat is a problem, I don't think that looking at whether can be removed is the answer.

I suggest that at the moment, we have basically two camps of website, with rough, fuzzy boundaries.

1. A place where someone sticks up an insight, or posts a wiki page, or whatever, to share some thought to others (if anyone actually cares). The blogs of many users of HN. Hacker News itself. Wikipedia. The Arch Linux Wiki. lwn.net. Etc. The sites are very roughly concerned with 'this is what I care about, if you do, great, this is useful to you'.

2. Commercial web sites that employ sophisticated means to try and enlarge market share and retain users. AB testing. 'Seamless' experiences which are aimed at getting more views, with user experience as an afterthought (a sort of evolutionary pressure, but not the only one).

Complaining that camp #2 exists is strange. It's a bit like lamenting the fact that chocolate bars aren't just chocolate bars, they have flashy wrappers, clever ingredients, optimized sugar ratio, crunchy bit and non crunchy bit, etc.

It works! A snickers bar is a global blockbuster, and 'Tesco chocolate bar' is the functional chocolate bar that just does the job, but will never attain that level of commercial success, it serves a different role.

-----

My personal view:

Fundamentally what I want when we click a link from an aggregator, is an 'article.txt' with perhaps a relevant image or two. Something like http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ maybe.

But if a site actually does that, a website like The Guardian, I'd fire up wget, strip all the advertising, strip the fact it's even The Guardian, and read it like a book. If everyone does it then no-one makes any money, site dies.

So what we actually have is this constant DRM-style race to try and fight for our brains to get us to look at adverts. It's not about jQuery, it's about advertising, branding, 'self vs other' (the integrity of a company as a coherent thing), etc.

I don't know what the answer is here. I think this is why I find concepts like UBI so appealing - I find it kind of alarming that we seem doomed to infect more and more of the commons with commercialization because we haven't found a solution to keep each other alive otherwise.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#58

> The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install It's not really surprising in a world where a graphical driver is > 100 MB (Nvidia driver for Windows).

Only a hundred megabytes? You're getting off light there. I went to install the latest Nvidia CUDA driver the other day, and it's a gigabyte download.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#59
post #30

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.

or use HTTP2 which should make the number of requests largely irrelevant.

HTTP/2 helps with that but the total size still matters. This is particularly relevant for resources like CSS which block rendering – even with HTTP/2 making it less important whether that's one big resource or a dozen small ones, the page won't render until it's all been transferred.

https://github.com/filamentgroup/loadCSS#recommended-usage-p... has a rather nice way to load CSS asynchronously in browsers which support rel=preload.

Post reply on HN