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

I am a fast webpage

varvy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 292 posts

Re: I am a fast webpage

#231

Post by 72deluxe »

jlmorton wrote: post #77

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…

I suppose if we are in control of the backend database that our content is delivered from, we can build a page with inlined images and CSS when the content that drives the page is changed, so it is possible to build quick pages.

The main driving point is probably the fact that there is sometimes no need to build pages that rely on all manner of JavaScript etc.

Re: I am a fast webpage

#232

Post by always_good »

Annatar wrote: post #212
always_good wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand what it accomplishes. Why does inline matter? The vulnerability means they can inject arbitrary markup including or that load offsite sources. You can use CSP to whitelist allowed offsite domains. But if you're not careful, "you never know" and "you might as well" are more likely to waste your time chasing low value things. For instance, inline CSS is valuable as an intermittent developer con…

I still don't understand what it accomplishes. Why does inline matter? In the worst case scenario, where the server doesn't have all the blocks of the file cached in random acces memory, the server can fetch the single, inlined file with fewer input operations per second from local storage far faster than one's web browser can fetch multiple files over the network. This means that latency is lowered, and thus deliver…

Right, I meant in regards to this comment chain where "inline CSS is bad if you have an XSS vulnerability."

Re: I am a fast webpage

#234

Post by webtechgal »

Annatar wrote: post #208
simbalion wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), for a single-page static HTML website with all inline-code (idiot+1). 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.

the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), You can always go with cheap, fully virtualized GNU/Linux server, or you can go with a virtual, true UNIX server running at the speed of bare metal[1]. Your choice, but quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance still cost something. It you don't care about any of those things, fork out $5 for the alternati…

Not disrespecting your opinion here, but $5 Digital Ocean droplets[1] have been working quite well for me as well as for nearly two dozens of my clients, spanning across the last several years (taking into account all the four important parameters you've specified: quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance).

My (limited) experience with Vultr[2] has also been fairly satisfactory.

[1] https://www.digitalocean.com/ [2] https://www.vultr.com/pricing/

Re: I am a fast webpage

#235

Post by mrweasel »

userbinator wrote: post #149

A good sequel to http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ , which is probably too understyled for most people.

I have two copies of a book. One is a hard cover, one is a paper back. The paper back is a few centimetres wider than the hard cover, and it makes that copy annoying to read.

There a certain length that a line can be, with being confusing or annoying to read. The reader mode in most browsers understands this, but for some weird reason reader mode isn't available for http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/, at least in Firefox.

Re: I am a fast webpage

#236

Post by aruggirello »

totalcrepe wrote: post #228
ebalit wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's implied that these advices are for content pages, for the "old web", and not for single page apps.

HN is neither of the two and IMO represents where people spend most of their time. I think Google's CSS embedding is terrible advice for the meaningful web, but logical advice for adwords landing pages or sites with content so bad or sparse you wont be navigating them.

HN has a purposely minimalist stylesheet / layout, with NO icons (except the one Y on the upper left corner), NO images or other media, NO fanciful animations.

Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures?

I agree though that this is great advice for landing pages; load times are probably among the reasons of most bounces.

Re: I am a fast webpage

#238

Post by totalcrepe »

aruggirello wrote: post #236
totalcrepe wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is neither of the two and IMO represents where people spend most of their time. I think Google's CSS embedding is terrible advice for the meaningful web, but logical advice for adwords landing pages or sites with content so bad or sparse you wont be navigating them.

HN has a purposely minimalist stylesheet / layout, with NO icons (except the one Y on the upper left corner), NO images or other media, NO fanciful animations. Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? I agree though that this is great advice for landing pages; load times are probably among the reasons of most bounces.

Yes, and HN is in violation of Google's performance guidelines for putting those sensible rules in a sensible place.

> Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures?

How does HN's CSS enforce a ban on img elements in pages pointing to a photo's canonical location? Or preclude putting your standard frames into it?

Imagine a photography site where no photo link is shared across any pages (but 90 page base64 encoded URLs are repeated randomly), an ecommerce site where a product is shown in a strange new light at every step in the checkout process using a mishmash of entirely different CSS.. Google's advice is approving the most idiotic behavior on sites that are barely keeping their head above water in terms of technical understanding, letting them hold onto strange ideas because they are "fast."

Re: I am a fast webpage

#239

Post by [deleted] »

wruza wrote: post #230
simbalion wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because all those other sites are poorly built. It's not because the article's site is a brilliant example of "doing it right". 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.

His site is at least full-featured article (you can load, scroll and read it, yay). Most sites I open are article sites, and they are rarely full-featured articles, because load/scroll features aren't easily accessible.

[deleted]

Re: I am a fast webpage

#240

Post by andreareina »

begriffs wrote: post #159

OP has certainly nailed Hacker News psychology. My old coworker called the technique "inferiority porn." Titles like "the secretly terrible developer" or the closing statement of this particular article: "Go away from me, I am too far beyond your ability to comprehend." As many people have pointed out there are faster methods of static hosting through a CDN, and many of the techniques of this site are inapplicable fo…

I'd say that the general idea of watching out for external and/or bloated resources is absolutely applicable for larger sites. Media sites are particularly egregious: not only does the js take the lion's share of what's transferred, rendering of the content I'm interested in typically blocks until everything is downloaded and processed.
Post reply on HN