121–130 of 292 posts
I've always wanted to play with putting /var/www into a ramdisk for PHP/html stuff. Would be much faster loading since it's all just text in the end of the day. Completely cut out the bottleneck of SSd/HDD
> "My images are inlined into the HTML using the base64 image tool, so there is no need for the browser to go looking for some image linked to as an external file." This does not work in most cases when you use big images. From StackOverflow answer [1]: "It's only useful for very tiny images. Base64 encoded files are larger than the original. The advantage lies in not having to open another connection and make a HTTP…
> This benefit is lost very quickly so there's only an advantage
> for large numbers of very tiny individual images.
I hate to be negative, but what really is the point of this? That a simple webpage without any content can be fast? Of course it can. Is it desirable to inline your CSS, "like a boss?" Maybe if you have one single web page. What if you have dynamic content and your users intend to browse more than one page? With externalized CSS, that is all cached. Same with images. If I'm building a web application, I certainly do…
It also seems somewhat antiquated. As service-worker comes online we can... do a lot more with a more naive method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it 'stop' if you reach the quota or do you get a bill?
I don't have any personal experience, but as I understand it, that depends on whether you enabled billing.
I can see in the source code that you're expressing all dimensions in terms of ems and %s. A technology such as Bootstrap will always be the way to go; however, could you tell us a little bit more about how you did this? How did you ensure that it looks good not only on your screen but on any screen? I know people are saying it has some errors on certain mobile devices, but that's still some pretty good job manipulat…
A technology such as Bootstrap will always be the way to go What? Why?
The point is that it's much more convenient to reuse code from a framework, because it's better to sacrifice file size for fast iteration and functionality.
I hate to be negative, but what really is the point of this? That a simple webpage without any content can be fast? Of course it can. Is it desirable to inline your CSS, "like a boss?" Maybe if you have one single web page. What if you have dynamic content and your users intend to browse more than one page? With externalized CSS, that is all cached. Same with images. If I'm building a web application, I certainly do…
It's not being negative to point out the glaring flaws in a person's statements. My assumption is the entire thing is an advertisement for that hosting service.
> "My images are inlined into the HTML using the base64 image tool, so there is no need for the browser to go looking for some image linked to as an external file." This does not work in most cases when you use big images. From StackOverflow answer [1]: "It's only useful for very tiny images. Base64 encoded files are larger than the original. The advantage lies in not having to open another connection and make a HTTP…
> This benefit is lost very quickly so there's only an advantage > for large numbers of very tiny individual images. In which case maybe it would be better to use sprites?
I hate to be negative, but what really is the point of this? That a simple webpage without any content can be fast? Of course it can. Is it desirable to inline your CSS, "like a boss?" Maybe if you have one single web page. What if you have dynamic content and your users intend to browse more than one page? With externalized CSS, that is all cached. Same with images. If I'm building a web application, I certainly do…
Edit: that's obviously a non-issue in this particular case since everything is static. But as a best practice this needs to be considered and inline CSS doesn't make you a boss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I notice that was weird too. The creator speaks a lot about about html optimizations but one of the most widely-used methods of page speed increases are global CDN distribution. The SSD is really meaningless in this context. The website is so small that it will be loaded almost 100% from the filesystem cache. As long as it has more than 512 MB of ram... If I wanted my website to load incredibly fast, I would abs…
Meaningless-weaningless, but that site loaded instantly on my iphone 4-without-s and did not lag, unlike all others (except hn ofc). No CDN can hide modern js freezotrons.
Putting bare text on the web is always going to be fast. So what. If he presented a real full-featured website with the bells and whistles that people expect today, and made it operate that fast, he'd have something to show. Instead he presents polished garbage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the most important factor: Whether you're reusing that image on a different page. Embedding images in the HTML is basically saving an HTTP request at the expense of not being able to cache the image separately from the HTML.
You can, however, embed images in CSS, which gives you both reduced requests and caching.