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

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

mobiforge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 467 posts

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

#81

Post by jokoon »

ebbv wrote: post #6

I would argue two things: 1) This is an irrelevant statistic. 2) Even if this were true it's not that big of a deal. This is irrelevant because most people don't browse the average web page. They browse the top few sites on the internet and that's it. A more relevant statistic would be what have the sizes of the top 50 sites been over the last 15 years. I imagine they still may have grown on average, but download spe…

Internet infrastructure is far from being cheap, and CPUs are not free either.

> Who cares? 2.2MB is nothing in 2016.

Multiply that by the amount of internet users, and now try to imagine all the hardware running this.

It's also about having a format that discourage bloat so that the web can be faster on a large scale.

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

#83

Post by tedmiston »

robotnoises wrote: post #25

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.

Not to mention that using the latest stable jQuery/Bootstrap from CDN means it's likely to be cached before a user visits your site.

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

#84

Post by batat »

pljns wrote: post #9

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.

https://pljns.com/

> 40-pound jQuery file and 83 polyfills give IE7 a boner because it finally has box-shadow

[x] check

> You loaded all 7 fontfaces of a shitty webfont just so you could say "Hi." at 100px height at the beginning of your site?

[x] assuming 404'ed fontawesome as shitty webfont, check

> You thought you needed media queries to be responsive, but no

[x] check

> Your site has three bylines and link to your dribbble account, but you spread it over 7 full screens and make me click some bobbing button to show me how cool the jQuery ScrollTo plugin is

[x] check

Still pretty good site, but it's funny how accurately creator of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ has described the situation with the modern web :)

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

#85

Post by lhorie »

warriorkitty wrote: post #4

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\

These days, for simple interactions, youmightnotneedjquery.com is a good resource for those trying to curb that sort of behavior.

On the framework end of the spectrum, we have efforts like Mithril.js that try to provide a minimalist set of tools for more ambitious web applications.

So all is not lost :)

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

#86

Post by AdamN »

The only real solution is a search engine that allows the end user to clip the results based on the maximum size of the total page. I've often wondered why Duck Duck Go doesn't do this as well as filter search results based on number of ad networks used, etc...

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

#87

Post by artificial »

Tenhundfeld wrote: post #62
spiderfarmer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speed index was invented for benchmarking this: https://sites.google.com/a/webpagetest.org/docs/using-webpag...

Ah, very cool, thanks for sharing. I'm familiar with a lot of the tools for evaluating the performance of a single site (e.g., that I'm developing), but I'm pretty ignorant of the standard approaches for these types of larger scale benchmarking projects.

If you're developing you may not be aware of Page Speed Insights, extremely handy for SEO. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/

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

#88

Post by detaro »

ebbv wrote: post #6

I would argue two things: 1) This is an irrelevant statistic. 2) Even if this were true it's not that big of a deal. This is irrelevant because most people don't browse the average web page. They browse the top few sites on the internet and that's it. A more relevant statistic would be what have the sizes of the top 50 sites been over the last 15 years. I imagine they still may have grown on average, but download spe…

> Even on an LTE connection that's probably between 4 and 1.5 seconds to download the full page

So on the fastest mobile connection type available it's a magnitude or more to slow to feel fast, and that's a good state of things?

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

#89

Post by lloyd-christmas »

hawski wrote: post #67
warriorkitty wrote: post #4

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 am not JS dev, but... At this point there should be tree shaking / dead code removal for JS widely deployed. Why it is not? I know that dynamic nature of JS causes some of it, but most code out there is not that dynamic. How good is Google's Closure compiler?

rollupjs.org as well as webpack2 are doing this. As you said, the dynamic nature will prevent this from being native. Using a build tool isn't terrible though.
Post reply on HN