The Fastest Blog in the World

Post by TheLoneWolfling » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #119

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, you could cut down the size slightly by shrinking div names. Sure, with gzip "aside.sidebar" isn't going to take much extra space, but it will take some. (That being said, please don't do this. Minified JS is bad enough.)

I think I'm pretty close to the 'sweet spot' where further optimizations are both a waste of time and make the result much less useful in the longer term. But just for the sake of research I'm more than willing to play around to see what happens.

Post by bhaak » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 9:22 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #101

bhaak wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTML in its pure form doesn't render well on current mobile devices. It's idiotic that you are punished when you use HTML like it was supposed to be used but that's unfortunately how the mobile browsers work currently.

Doesn't render nice in desktop browsers either. Once upon a time, at least that page would actually be a little easier on the eyes (and a bit uglier) thanks to Netscape's gray background. But the real kicker is that user stylesheets have gone the way of the dodo. There's no reason that page (as is) couldn't look better than most pdfs generated from LaTeX or what not. Sad, but true.

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

nevinera wrote: post #120

jacquesm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd expect in-lining the css to be a slight net loss once the data is cached I expected that too but it didn't work out that way. I'm not sure why, possibly a cache lookup is still slower than reading the style info out of the same page. I don't know enough about the guts of a modern browser to make the call but the numbers aren't there.

In chrome, I'm getting extremely similar times for the two approaches without caching (I am in-network, so my roundtrips are ~1ms). With the style.css fully cached, I'm getting ~15ms faster on the sideband approach than with inline styles. Can you expose your methodology, or are you using a common tool for testing these things?

Post by nevinera » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 11:22 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #125

nevinera wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In chrome, I'm getting extremely similar times for the two approaches without caching (I am in-network, so my roundtrips are ~1ms). With the style.css fully cached, I'm getting ~15ms faster on the sideband approach than with inline styles. Can you expose your methodology, or are you using a common tool for testing these things?

Using FF development tools. Shift-ctrl-Q, reload.

Post by diggan » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 11:35 AM UTC

eterm wrote: post #46

onion2k wrote: post #18

This is absolutely brilliant if the only metric your audience cares about is page load time . For most sites that's only part of the story. Take the first paragraph, about how Google's homepage of just a textbox should really be a few hundred bytes instead of a megabyte. Google's homepage does a lot more than just enabling you to enter a search - there's the autosuggest feature, there's analytics, the apps tray, G+ i…

There's also the "Billion Dollar line of javascript"[1] which focuses your input on the search box. [1] https://www.branded3.com/blog/billion-dollar-javascript/