How fast is AMP really? • Hacker News Board

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#11

Post by lern_too_spel » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:07 AM UTC

A very low quality article. The whole point of AMP is to define a restricted subset of HTML that is safe to prerender and still provide working analytics to the publisher. When you prerender, the advantage of AMP is substantial as it is impossible to beat a user experience of instant, which is why users prefer it and why publishers go through the trouble of implementing two web versions of their web pages (in addition to Facebook and Apple News non-web versions).

The point of the AMP cache is not for CDN speed, as the author mistakenly believed and measured, but for same-origin or CORS prerender, and Google is not the only implementer.

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#12

Post by tzahola » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:07 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #2

A suggestion for the author: Please avoid commas (or dots) as thousands separators. My brain parses "4,604ms" as "about four milliseconds", which would be amazing, but is very much not what you mean. ISO recommends half-width spaces as thousands separators to avoid this kind of confusion. Also, I think thousands separators can just be skipped if your numbers are only four or five digits wide.

IMO we should introduce locale-dependent number formatting to HTML.

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#13

Post by tzahola » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

Shorel wrote: post #10

Answer: not as fast as the D lang forums. https://forum.dlang.org/

Wow, that site indeed feels fast! Is there a writeup about how it’s done?

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#14

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:15 AM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #5

So basically Google could get 90% of what AMP provides without AMP itself, because the magic is in the caching and forcibly reducing the ad junk the page loads. Does that about sum it up?

[deleted]

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#15

Post by Jackim » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:16 AM UTC

tzahola wrote: post #13

Shorel wrote: post #10

Answer: not as fast as the D lang forums. https://forum.dlang.org/

Wow, that site indeed feels fast! Is there a writeup about how it’s done?

There's a bit of discussion about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3592769

Source of the site is here: https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#16

Post by yorby » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:16 AM UTC

How fast could google.com be if they trimmed the JS fat?

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#17

Post by millstone » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:17 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #11

A very low quality article. The whole point of AMP is to define a restricted subset of HTML that is safe to prerender and still provide working analytics to the publisher. When you prerender, the advantage of AMP is substantial as it is impossible to beat a user experience of instant, which is why users prefer it and why publishers go through the trouble of implementing two web versions of their web pages (in additio…

Publishers go through the trouble in order to get the boost in Google's rankings.

As an iOS user I find AMP to be quite buggy, and AMP versions of pages like reddit are borderline non-functional. I don't prefer it at all.

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#18

Post by tylerl » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:25 AM UTC

Shorel wrote: post #10

Answer: not as fast as the D lang forums. https://forum.dlang.org/

And not NEARLY as fast as example.com!

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#19

Post by niutech » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:29 AM UTC

If you want to test how fast are AMP pages compared to full pages, check out the AMP Browser Extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amp-browser-extens...

Re: How fast is AMP really?

#20

Post by user5994461 » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:31 AM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #8

majewsky wrote: post #2

A suggestion for the author: Please avoid commas (or dots) as thousands separators. My brain parses "4,604ms" as "about four milliseconds", which would be amazing, but is very much not what you mean. ISO recommends half-width spaces as thousands separators to avoid this kind of confusion. Also, I think thousands separators can just be skipped if your numbers are only four or five digits wide.

This seems to be a European issue perhaps? I've never once been confused by a comma in a number. In fact, it makes them easier to read, not harder. Can you describe your experience with numbers? Are you a mathematician or in some other scientific field? Also, it seems odd to make a request like this of a (seemingly) random author on the internet. It feels similar to making a demand to change writing style. (ie, oxfor…

You must be American then because that's the American format.

Different countries and languages have different format of numbers. That's one of the most common issue in internationalization.

If you send a bill for a 5,000 dollars service, expect your international customers to send you back five dollars. The comma is broadly interpreted as the decimal separator.