> as little as possible I just opened FB with the cache disabled and it downloaded 5.85MB (19.76MB uncompressed). Most of it happens after the page has rendered, which is great, but that's a lot of stuff. There are 13.74MB of uncompressed JavaScript.
Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
51–60 of 489 posts
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#52> as little as possible I just opened FB with the cache disabled and it downloaded 5.85MB (19.76MB uncompressed). Most of it happens after the page has rendered, which is great, but that's a lot of stuff. There are 13.74MB of uncompressed JavaScript.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#53Quite sincerely, it's a total failure. I got the chance to try the new interface, and it's so slow that it's barely usable. It's even slower than the old website, that was already painfully slow. Loading a random profile takes 8 seconds. Opening a messenger discussion takes 6 seconds. It reminds me of the new Reddit website. Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago. It's really sad that in 2020, 10k+ engineers…
Sorry, I won’t take blame for that. Still haven’t found a use case for React/Angular or SASS/whatever. If I’m guilty of something is not recognizing the validity of those tools, as I’m sure there are. But 2MB CSS is simply inconceivable to me.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I won’t take blame for that. Still haven’t found a use case for React/Angular or SASS/whatever. If I’m guilty of something is not recognizing the validity of those tools, as I’m sure there are. But 2MB CSS is simply inconceivable to me.
Big +1. I would be really interested to find one, only ONE, website where React/Angular was really bringing a better experience and better final product than a standard pure JS with simple Ajax system.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#55Quite sincerely, it's a total failure. I got the chance to try the new interface, and it's so slow that it's barely usable. It's even slower than the old website, that was already painfully slow. Loading a random profile takes 8 seconds. Opening a messenger discussion takes 6 seconds. It reminds me of the new Reddit website. Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago. It's really sad that in 2020, 10k+ engineers…
Comments like these remind of an old post on Slashdot, "What makes a good website?" Ask "geeks" what they prefer, it's usually minimalism, no images, consistent text styling. In the end, the ideal format becomes a text file without markup. I think we need to accept the opinions of techies are increasingly irrelevant in tech. It's like being fine artist getting paid to design flyers or a chef making burgers.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I won’t take blame for that. Still haven’t found a use case for React/Angular or SASS/whatever. If I’m guilty of something is not recognizing the validity of those tools, as I’m sure there are. But 2MB CSS is simply inconceivable to me.
Big +1. I would be really interested to find one, only ONE, website where React/Angular was really bringing a better experience and better final product than a standard pure JS with simple Ajax system.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#57Quite sincerely, it's a total failure. I got the chance to try the new interface, and it's so slow that it's barely usable. It's even slower than the old website, that was already painfully slow. Loading a random profile takes 8 seconds. Opening a messenger discussion takes 6 seconds. It reminds me of the new Reddit website. Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago. It's really sad that in 2020, 10k+ engineers…
The 2MB was for the old site. The new site loads 20% or 400KB.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree whole heartedly, Facebook is a disgrace of a website and has been for years. Crazy how slow it is to load.
I think you could add Twitter and New Reddit to the list as well.
The website features didn't changed in between. It's basically a pagination + a search based on radius (so DB related) + name (so DB related) + categories (so DB related).
The complete website could be build in pure HTML + CSS and a bit of JS + Ajax to refresh parts of it.
But no, it's build with ReactJS, and it takes seconds to search a simple item on it.
To compare, just try the same search on the Dutch equivalent, MarktPlaats, https://www.marktplaats.nl/. The experience is way snappier, way lighter, the features are the same, and it's just HTML + CSS + a bit of JS.
We made a mistake with React/Vue/Angular. And we should really go back and stop using those frameworks.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#59Quite sincerely, it's a total failure. I got the chance to try the new interface, and it's so slow that it's barely usable. It's even slower than the old website, that was already painfully slow. Loading a random profile takes 8 seconds. Opening a messenger discussion takes 6 seconds. It reminds me of the new Reddit website. Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago. It's really sad that in 2020, 10k+ engineers…
I haven’t noticed it being slower either, it’s certainly not fast, but it’s not really something I notice either.
Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com
#60> as little as possible I just opened FB with the cache disabled and it downloaded 5.85MB (19.76MB uncompressed). Most of it happens after the page has rendered, which is great, but that's a lot of stuff. There are 13.74MB of uncompressed JavaScript.
With a standard 4G/FTTH connection that's less than one second of download time.