71–80 of 109 posts
Shameless plug I made an entire organ synthesizer in under 1024 bytes of html/js (use your keyboard): https://js1024.fun/demos/2022/23 source / instructions / background: https://github.com/ThomasBrierley/js1024-mini-b3-organ-synth The javascript was significantly reduced in size by using regpack, which is a regex based dictionary compression algorithm targetting very small self decompressing javascript. Writing for…
Nice username!
More impressive is to build a website that can be sent in a single TCP packet. This means a site can be no more than 14kb compressed and should serve everything in just a single request. Would have to base 64 encode images as well. This would probably end up as a meatier website but still blazing fast.
The whole point of the 1MB club and other such efforts are to show what can be done without the equivalent of multiple copies of Doom[0] worth of JavaScript to display what is just a static landing page.
There are completely legitimate uses for "web apps", things that are actual useful applications that happen to be built in a browser. No one is saying that web apps aren't a totally valid means of delivering software.
The problem is every website written using the same frameworks Facebook and Google use for their web apps to build sites that could easily just be some static HTML[1]. We have devices in our pockets that would have been considered super computers a few decades ago. I have more RAM on my phone than I had hard drive storage on my first PC. My cellular connection is orders or magnitude faster with orders of magnitude better latency than my first dial-up Internet connection.
Despite those things the average web pages loads slow as shit on my phone or laptop. They're making dozens to hundreds of requests, loading unnecessarily huge images, tons of JavaScript, autoplay videos, and troves of advertising scripts that only waste power and bandwidth. I find the web almost unusable without an ad blocker and even then I still find it ridiculous how poorly most sites perform.
I love waiting at a blank page while it tries to load a pointless custom font or refuses to draw if there's heavy load on some third party API server. I also absolutely adore trying to use some bloated page when I'm on shitty 4G in between some buildings or on the outskirts of town.
It would be nice if I didn't need the latest and greatest phone or laptop to browse the web. It would be nice if web pages rediscovered progressive enhancement. Add JavaScript to improve some default useful version of a page. You don't need to load some HTML skeleton that only loads a bunch of JavaScript just to load a JSON document that contains the actual content of a page.
[0] https://www.wired.com/2016/04/average-webpage-now-size-origi...
Shameless plug I made an entire organ synthesizer in under 1024 bytes of html/js (use your keyboard): https://js1024.fun/demos/2022/23 source / instructions / background: https://github.com/ThomasBrierley/js1024-mini-b3-organ-synth The javascript was significantly reduced in size by using regpack, which is a regex based dictionary compression algorithm targetting very small self decompressing javascript. Writing for…
I just wanted to say this is really impressive :) The latency is almost zero. I've always thought of "browser applications" as these heavyweight mammoths where each keystroke needs at least a couple hundred milliseconds to process. Good to know these kinds of things are still possible. Browser synthesizers have become my new point of interest :)
More impressive is to build a website that can be sent in a single TCP packet. This means a site can be no more than 14kb compressed and should serve everything in just a single request. Would have to base 64 encode images as well. This would probably end up as a meatier website but still blazing fast.
I assume you mean 1.4kb? Squeezing graphics into that is possible but very difficult for anything larger than an icon. If the browser supports vector graphics of some flavor you could do a lot so long as the shapes aren't overly complex.
More impressive is to build a website that can be sent in a single TCP packet. This means a site can be no more than 14kb compressed and should serve everything in just a single request. Would have to base 64 encode images as well. This would probably end up as a meatier website but still blazing fast.
I assume you mean 1.4kb? Squeezing graphics into that is possible but very difficult for anything larger than an icon. If the browser supports vector graphics of some flavor you could do a lot so long as the shapes aren't overly complex.
But the initial round trip can be 14kb, 10 packets. So under that the user will not need anymore trips.
Shameless plug I made an entire organ synthesizer in under 1024 bytes of html/js (use your keyboard): https://js1024.fun/demos/2022/23 source / instructions / background: https://github.com/ThomasBrierley/js1024-mini-b3-organ-synth The javascript was significantly reduced in size by using regpack, which is a regex based dictionary compression algorithm targetting very small self decompressing javascript. Writing for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From time to time I visit websites that my i7 16gb dell xps struggles to process. Bloody hell, 20 years ago that kind of power would have powered a small super computer and now it can't run a news websites.
"i7" isn't a particularly useful measure of computer performance. It can refer to over 12 years worth of processors, including the ultra-low power version of the first model, a 1.07GHz processor. That thing probably has trouble loading Emacs.
And with those historic words, the vi vs emacs debate was finally won.