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 don't think jQuery is the problem. jQuery is not 1.2 MB. It's not even 0.1 MB.
The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
151–160 of 467 posts
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#152I once bought a pre-made landing page template with all kinds of whizz bang Javascript libraries built in. The demo page was 4 MB. In the time it took to strip all the trash out of the template I could have designed the page myself. I'll never do that again.
I wonder how much of the problem is due to bloated templates.
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#153Quite 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…
Great writeup! I might try this out later and see how it fairs. I haven't used the Jekyll + GitHub combo yet but I have heard great things.
Thanks, glad you liked it :) If you do give it a try and run into problems tweet me at @k0nserv.
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#154The Doom install image was 35x the size of the Apollo guidance computer. Thirty-five times! Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game. My point of course is that these comparisons are not actually that illuminating. Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes. This presentation very capably talks about that problem: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm Do…
Remember: It's not a waste if you (and millions of other people) have fun!
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#155It is hardly surprising, considering that a single picture taken with an average smartphone is probably already surpassing that by quite a bit.
Times change, and 20 years in tech is equivalent to several geological ages.
If anything, it cannot really be underestimated how some developers were able to craft such compelling gaming experiences, with the limited resources available at the time.
My personal favorite as "most impressive game for its size":
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#156In 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?
This, and Javascript, and browser bloat.
Unless the browser ends up swapping a lot I doubt that browser bloat would cause significant perceptible performance regressions compared to the quite significant amount of optimization that has happened in the meanwhile.
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#157With the majority of users moving towards mobile, I really think this is an issue, and I've been consciously building projects as lean as possible. Removing bloated jquery libraries was a big one. With native calls like document.querySelectorAll document.querySelector I've found I can 90% get by without it. For the rest, using something like vue.js, and I've taken care of all the dom manipulation, data binding, etc.
I lived in $nowheresville, TN for a bit. This drove me insane. Sure, your webapp works great in downtown SF, but try loading it with the spotty connection the rest of the country has, not to mention the rest of the world.
One of the places I worked at had a computer hooked up to a ~800 kbps modem, and would test all their web-pages on that. It was really eye-opening, and I wish more companies would benchmark like that
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I agree with you that putting JQuery in the browser is a bad idea, but the second part of the argument, that the browser will have the libraries in cache is not really that reliable. Here's some notes I collected on the subject: http://justinblank.com/notebooks/BrowserCacheEffectiveness.h... .
I was definitely speaking whimsically because it is a huge chicken and egg problem. But theoretically if every site that used jQuery referenced a version at https://code.jquery.com/ there would be a very good hit ratio, even considering different versions. However we are a very, very far way away from that.
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#159Quite 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…
That loaded SOOO fast on mobile with no delays or scrolling problems. Great job!
Note: Might try it with NoScript later. Always a good indicator of... something...
Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have an innate metric for "this thing is slow", it's when lots of time passes between its start and end. Why is color-coding more evident than our own perception of time?
I think his key phrase is " expected to load, " which means the color coding would provide an indicator before the user clicks on the links . Therefore, the user skips the unnecessary pain of perceiving the slowness for himself.
Yes exactly.