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

91–100 of 467 posts

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

#91

Post by robotnoises »

r1ch wrote: post #61
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.

That's still 84 KB of highly compressed javascript code to parse and execute. Even on a 4.4 GHz CPU core and a cached request, jquery takes upwards of 22ms to parse - that's just parsing - not even executing anything! Now add a bunch of other frameworks and utility scripts and your 100ms budget for feeling "fast" is gone before you even reach the HTML content.

That's a fair point, though my threshold for fast is probably a bit higher than 100ms. That might be a conditioned thing, though.

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

#92

Post by ebbv »

jokoon wrote: post #81
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.

What? The size of a page has nothing to do with the CPU. Most of that size is going to be in images and animation, and most web pages put basically no load on your CPU. If one does it's going to be because of badly written JS, not because of the size.

Shrinking the average page size even by half is not going to "the web run faster on a large scale." Most of the time your page load speed is not affected by congestion, and if it is it's likely due to a local tower or something. The problem there will be the number of users per tower, not the size of the pages they are loading.

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

#93

Post by gonzo41 »

K0nserv wrote: post #75

Quite happy with my own web page/blog. Pages hover at around 10kb, 30kb if I include some images. I think the page size can be attributed a lot to there being no JS except for GA. I have taken a lot of inspiration from http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ Of course the size will differ depending on the site's purpose, but I feel like most web pages could stand to loose a lot of…

Plus one for you. It used to be the internet was a book, now it's a movie.

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

#94

Post by Lawtonfogle »

kevincox wrote: post #73
d33 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I hear this argument a lot, and I very much disagree. Now you have browser vendors having to device which libraries are "popular" and shipping them in the initial download of the browser. It turns out that this technology already exists in a much better form. It's called cache. The problem is that almost everyone hosts their own version of jQuery. If everyone simply linked the "canonical" version of jQuery (the CDN l…

> If everyone simply linked the "canonical" version of jQuery (the CDN link is right on their site) then requiring jQuery will be effectively free because it will be in everyone's cache.

So create one massive target that needs to be breached to access massive numbers of websites around the world?

Imagine if every Windows PC ran code from a single web page on startup every time they started up. Now imagine if anything could be put in that code and it would be ran. How big of a target would that be?

While there are cases where the performance is worth using a CDN, there are plenty of reasons to not want to run foreign code.

(Now maybe we could add some security, like generating a hash of the code on the CDN and matching it with a value provided by the website and only running the code if the hashes matched. But there are still business risks even with that.)

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

#95

Post by megalodon »

rplnt wrote: post #12
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\

The community is the worst. The adds whole jQuery comes from every single js topic on SO in the past five+ years being answered by "just use jquery". Many times they are not even web related at all. > "How do you do something in javascript?" > "With jQuery you do it like this..." I had the worst time ever when I had to work with jscript. I really wonder if my dislike of the language comes from the language itself or…

SO feels more like a race to answer fast rather than to answer with quality. I think the best way to learn about the language is through the Mozilla Developer Network. I can't speak for everyone but I feel incredibly productive when programming in javascript.

I'd argue that jQuery was great, but now most (if not all) of it can be replaced by native javascript features (e.g. document.querySelector). Today I wouldn't recommend jQuery to anyone.

I suggest learning a functional language (in my case it was Haskell) in parallel, as it opens up new ways of thinking about javascript and problem solving.

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

#96

Post by d33 »

kevincox wrote: post #73
d33 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I hear this argument a lot, and I very much disagree. Now you have browser vendors having to device which libraries are "popular" and shipping them in the initial download of the browser. It turns out that this technology already exists in a much better form. It's called cache. The problem is that almost everyone hosts their own version of jQuery. If everyone simply linked the "canonical" version of jQuery (the CDN l…

The problem with caching is that you're sharing the referer with the canonical URL. Another problem is that you're using someone else's bandwidth. And if you combine the two, you can be sure that info about your visitors will be sold, which is why quite a lot of people would prefer to host their own versions of jQuery...

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

#98

Post by jordigh »

Just to clarify, since I was confused (I remembered that Doom 2 was about 30 megs uncompressed, which websites are still a long ways from), this metric appears to refer to the compressed size of the Doom 1 shareware distribution.

http://www.doomarchive.com/ListFiles.asp?FolderId=216&Conten...

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

#99

Post by illumen »

d33 wrote: post #49
jessriedel wrote: post #15

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?

There are checksums available for resources now. As of last few months. Also things like jQuery are available from multiple CDN, and they are used by many of the top websites and html frameworks. So you probably already have it in cache.

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

#100

Post by ma2rten »

jessriedel wrote: post #15

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 thought Google already punishes slow loading websites.
Post reply on HN