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

161–170 of 467 posts

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

#161

Post by tyingq »

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 think a plugin that enables the chrome "regular 2G" throttling (developer tools / network tab), permanently, for anyone that works in marketing or web development might help :)

Edit: Joking aside, that throttling feature is a nice easy way to let a dev team, or business counterpart, see what their site is like for say, a customer with a low-end DSL connection: https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/prof...

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

#162

Post by CaptSpify »

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…

correct! reminds me of: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ssRUr.gif

I think SO has gotten a little better about this, but not much, IME

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

#163

Post by K0nserv »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #159
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…

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...

Fun story about NoScript. I used to use AMP[0]. But I reverted that for two reasons.

1. The size of their js is ~170kb roughly 17 times larger than most of my pages.

2. It loads from a 3d party domain which means that NoScript/uBlock Origin users will see a blank white page.

The project does impose some constraints that will help reduce page weight and increase page speed, but for my page sizes it's ridiculous to use their JS.

0: https://www.ampproject.org/

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

#164

Post by nickpsecurity »

overcast wrote: post #13
Ruud-v-A wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about not using js at all? I think that for the majority of pages it doesn’t add any value.

With the instant gratification generation, not having dynamic content is going to be a tough sell. I will however agree, there is a gross overuse of it.

The funny part about your reply is JS-heavy websites delay instant gratification on slow connections or machines. They can take 10-30 seconds then objects start jumping around as you try to click them.

Whereas a cached static page or templated dynamic loads pretty instantly if it's mostly text content. In a way they understand if it's graphics.

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

#165

Post by nickpsecurity »

Kristine1975 wrote: post #130
njharman wrote: post #126

So, were can I play Doom in the browser?

Here: http://playdosgamesonline.com/doom-ii-hell-on-earth.html (yes, it's Doom 2, and yes it requires a fast machine since it emulates a DOS PC in the browser)

I can't help but add that it's a DOS PC + a game that still loads faster than some web pages. At some point, even the apples to oranges comparisons start saying something because it's glaringly obvious.

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

#166

Post by Eerie »

snowwrestler wrote: post #110

The 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…

>Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game.

How many millions of man-hours Apollo project wasted for a PR stunt?

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

#167

Post by mod »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #111
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?

We absolutely, most certainly, should NOT ship libraries with browsers. This is a horrible idea. Browser vendors would then have too much influence on development libraries.

It could be a 'use the default or link your own' situation, which then wouldn't influence a whole lot.

But I agree, overall.

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

#168

Post by CaptSpify »

disclaimer: my own blog - https://blog.thekyel.com/?anchor=Why_I_Block_Scripts_and_Ads

I kept looking for a "minimal" blogging platform, but they all had too much bloat/JS/etc. I guess minimal means different things to different people. I ended up just writing my own. The biggest post I have is 7.41 KB.

I used to be interested in front-end design, but since it's the industry standard to use $latest_framework, instead of tried and proven practices, I've given up on that idea.

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

#169

Post by sergiotapia »

Arguably sites have been increasing in size for one simple reason: It directly results in increased sales.

Everything is sales.

If cleaner, 'purer' sites made more money you bet the average web page would be 10kb.

It's all about what translates to more sales. As such, you won't ever see a return to more traditional websites. Look at Amazon with it's virtual dress models, heavy as hell, but they most certainly land more sales.

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

#170

Post by manaskarekar »

Eerie wrote: post #166
snowwrestler wrote: post #110

The 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…

>Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game. How many millions of man-hours Apollo project wasted for a PR stunt?

Mandatory: Benefits from Apollo [PDF] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/80660main_ApolloFS....
Post reply on HN