Please stop saying "performant" when you mean "fast". If you just mean "fast", say "fast".
How fast is AMP really?
71–80 of 167 posts
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#72Answer: not as fast as the D lang forums. https://forum.dlang.org/
If you really think that's fast (and you're on the west coast...), try: https://www.changedetection.com/directory.html
Sadly it seems you can't register new accounts anymore because of their merger(?) with VisualPing, but their old site still functions for those with accounts and the speed is mindblowing as you can see there. I feel every website should strive to be like this.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't seem that fast to me compared to other sites, then I realized I'm running Firefox with uBlock while the rest of you are probably on Chrome.
On a phone? Last time I tried adblocking on a phone I was super irritated by it. Some proxy setup that never quite worked and felt like it slowed everything down.
Adblock on firefox on android just works.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#74Answer: 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?
You can find the source on GitHub it not only runs a web server... It runs an IRC bot too and an NNTP server as well so you can download all threads and post with a newsreader / usenet client.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google reliably detect pages like this? The same way it reliable detects the content of the site and everything else. Take a snapshot and keep the latest history. You can easily change the content on a page with javascript so Google still needs to load everything to get an accurate representation. Since there are plenty of tools already (including Google's own) that measure page loading speed, it would be trivial t…
> The same way it reliable detects the content of the site and everything else. Take a snapshot and keep the latest history. Wouldn't benchmarking page speed accurately for all pages on a website for a variety of screen sizes on a regular basis cost significant resources? If it's so easy, why are they not doing this already? What I meant about AMP is that when a page validates as an AMP page you know there's certain…
Benchmarking is just logging the time taken during the process of waiting for the content to load, which is already happening to index the page. No special framework necessary.
They aren't doing it because AMP gives far more data and keeps first party cookies because of the cached domain.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make performance (not AMP) matter in search rankings and websites would immediately start getting faster.
See: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/01/using-page-speed-i...
Good to see, however this still hasn't started, it's far too late after AMP, and only affects "a small percentage" as quoted. It also doesn't give the special carousel placement in the results page, which is only available via AMP.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#77A 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.
I really appreciate commas a separators within numbers. One man's trash, I guess...
The problem is that many countries don't use the comma as thousands separator and rather use it as decimal separator. (And then the dot as thousands separator.)
So, "1,234,567.890" becomes "1.234.567,890".
If all you have is "7.890" or "7,890", you need to know what system the author uses.
What the guy proposes is always using spaces as thousands separators, independent of the system you're in.
So, then it would be written as "1 234 567.890" or as "1 234 567,890".
The spaces are almost universally understood and don't collide with other meanings.
It would still be possible for someone to be confused, if you're at the decimal separator and write your regional separator there, but it would cut out half the confusion.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The same way it reliable detects the content of the site and everything else. Take a snapshot and keep the latest history. Wouldn't benchmarking page speed accurately for all pages on a website for a variety of screen sizes on a regular basis cost significant resources? If it's so easy, why are they not doing this already? What I meant about AMP is that when a page validates as an AMP page you know there's certain…
Benchmarking is just logging the time taken during the process of waiting for the content to load, which is already happening to index the page. No special framework necessary. They aren't doing it because AMP gives far more data and keeps first party cookies because of the cached domain.
> Benchmarking is just logging the time taken during the process of waiting for the content to load
I don't think it's as simple as you make out at all. Compared to just downloading the HTML and checking its contents, this requires executing JavaScript and rendering content in an actual browser which is orders of magnitude slower and more resource intensive.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was broadly the English-language format. AFAIK the comma is the thousands separator in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada.
I was actually taught the SI English style in school in Australia (i.e 1 108 512.33) but the comma style (i.e 1,108,512.33) seems to be a lot more common here in everyday use. I guess the SI version is mainly used in scientific publications?
I agree, also Australian and space is the right one to use. But we do use the comma too.
Re: How fast is AMP really?
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's less to do with country and more to do with language. All English speaking countries use the comma as separator, and the decimal point as the decimal separator. So, if you're reading an article that is written in English, from context you know that decimal points will be used as decimal separator and comma will be used as digit grouping. No confusion. However, confusion happens when non-native English sp…
We told you that Esperanto is a better choice, but since you insisted for English to be world’s language, please let us write how we like. I’m not going to isolate me from the world of non-native writers in favour of English sirs’ better understanding of digits. Sorry for my tone if I got wrong feeling that your comment is arrogant.
> please let us write how we like.
I did not mean to tell you what language to use. You can write and converse in whatever language you please.
> I’m not going to isolate me from the world of non-native writers in favour of English sirs’ better understanding of digits.
It's not about which system is better, but it's about following the grammar and conventions of the language you are using. For example, would you knowingly use the wrong verb form in an English sentence just because it resembles the usage in your native language?
> Sorry for my tone if I got wrong feeling that your comment is arrogant.
I don't think it is possible for my tone to be arrogant in this regard since I myself am a non-native English speaker I meant no disrespect :)