251–260 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me the "no synthesizers" used in the 80's by some musicians :-)
I know right? I cannot really for the super-cool bloatware fashion craze JS frameworks to die. Here's an idea: WebAssembly, but use existing Opcodes from the JVM.
Not that wickedly fast unless you're really near Dallas where the server is: https://performance.sucuri.net/domain/varvy.com Hosting on a single VPS is never gonna be very fast globally no matter what you pay your hosting. In fact our free plan on netlify would make this a whole lot faster...
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…
No, that most "content" making webpages slow is useless BS bloat.
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.
No, but I can imagine an photography site, or an e-commerce site without useless non-content pictures and shit-loads of CSS and JS.
Of course that's entirely irrelevant as the page completely fits into the ram of the server (or even the CPUs cache for that matter)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this image inlining thing something new? No, it's been around since forever. Just not used terribly often. > Am I reading it correctly that the images are encoded in base64 and delivered as html? Surely this is a bad idea... no? It depends. Making a new request to fetch the image always has overhead. Whether that overhead is bigger or smaller than the overhead of base64-encoding the image depends on: • file size…
Completely offtopic, but how do you type •? I like it.
Characters like →, —, €, £, ©, ™, µ, ①, ②, , °, “ and ”, … and ‽ are easily available, as well as most European-ish letter accents: àáâäąȧåảāãæ.
(I live in Denmark, but rarely type Danish. The compose key is more than adequate for typing København, Østerbro and the Æ in my street's name.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hate to be negative, but what really is the point of this? To shame people who build slow, bloated websites. Saying that no bloat equates to no content is part of the problem.
This kind of attitude is the problem actually.. There is no silver bullet solution to all problems when building webpages, and if you think this guy's advice is catch-all for everyone and that "shaming" people who don't follow those rules is good, then you're a bad developer. Someone else said it elsewhere in this thread, but different contexts need different solutions based on determined use cases and needs.
Being diplomatic about it and not assuming everyone who deployed a Joomla installation with a ton of bad plugins because it HAS TO WORK NOW is an idiot is OK. But wrapping bad engineering practices in "different contexts need different solutions based on determined use cases and needs" is a very different story.
Obviously, different contexts and use cases need different solutions. That's no excuse to pick the bad ones, nor to pretend they're not really, really bad.
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.
HTTP2 allows CSS to specified in the HTTP header. However Google AMP doesn't support it yet.