What's a good framework for building lightweight websites? Or am I better off just writing HTML?
1MB Club
181–190 of 392 posts
Re: 1MB Club
#182My personal fav: 148kb, $530B company. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com
Including an ad, no less.
Re: 1MB Club
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think an ad blocker should be assumed when calculating the size of a web page.
It would depend on precisely what you're measuring. If you're concerned about page loading speeds, then resources that don't block rendering or functionality (like, I assume, a proper GA integration) might not be worth considering. But if you're worried about, say, bandwidth usage, then of course you'd want to count everything.
This is true, although any resources loaded introduce CPU overhead, which can be non-negligible, especially on mobile.
Re: 1MB Club
#184I love it! I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages. But maybe that's what makes it so damning when pages fail to adhere to it. I know at least one website I maintain fails it spectacularly (though in my defense it's entirely because of that website being chock-full of photos, and full-res ones at that; pages without those are well under that 1MB mark), while other sites I've…
Don’t forget that also 1MB of JavaScript is much much more heavy on the client than 1MB image
Indeed, but you also get more bang for your downloaded buck.
My toy project https://k8.fingswotidun.com/static/ide/?gist=ad96329670965dc...
Gives you an emulator, an 8-bit AVR Assembler, and an IDE for just over 500k transferred. Almost all of it JavaScript.
Using math.js is by far the heaviest part but at least your Asm already knows things like solarMass and planckConstant :-). CodeMirror comes in second heaviest but for user-experience-per-byte you're always going to be streets ahead of a gif.
Re: 1MB Club
#185Here's a common example, from a FAANG company: 72mb and 367 requests to display around 2,000 characters of text. Maybe double that if you count the "hyperlinks."
Single page applications are horrible, and oh-so-common.
Re: 1MB Club
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the risk of over-complicating things, perhaps there could be limits per resource type. 10Mb of images might be reasonable (e.g. for a photojournal), but only 128KB of JS, and 128KB for everything else. Something along those lines.
Yeah I was surprised they included pictures in the limit at all -- I mean, sometimes, you need those pictures, and for them to load slower is less important so long as you don't need them to navigate the page.
I’m not surprised. The whole point of it is that you can reasonably load it over 3g.
If you have a few megs of images that never show up because they take too long to load, there is no point.
Re: 1MB Club
#187I was once asked to debug an extremely slowly loading page. In the first 5 minutes it was evident that the client was doing things it wasn't supposed to do. It was downloading 300MB worth of resources to show the webpage. Incorrect implementations and inefficient use of libraries is the reason why we're seeing a bloated websites all over the web
> It was downloading 300MB worth of resources to show the webpage. Incorrect implementations and inefficient use of libraries is the reason why we're seeing a bloated websites all over the web In situations like that, it's right and proper to ask who built the site. Then shake your head with absolute contempt.
and follow them around from job to job, giving yourself endless contacting work cleaning up their messes!
Re: 1MB Club
#188Two suggestions 1. Weight sites by some popularity count. Otherwise does anyone care if some random small site generates a 0.1k response just to get to the top 2. Do you plan continuously verify the download size is still accurate.
1. maybe weight websites by alexa rank?
2. some selenium github action would pretty much automate everything
Re: 1MB Club
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the risk of over-complicating things, perhaps there could be limits per resource type. 10Mb of images might be reasonable (e.g. for a photojournal), but only 128KB of JS, and 128KB for everything else. Something along those lines.
Yeah I was surprised they included pictures in the limit at all -- I mean, sometimes, you need those pictures, and for them to load slower is less important so long as you don't need them to navigate the page.
You dont really need full size/resolution images on a web page.
Re: 1MB Club
#190I don't mind highlighting and curating small sites for fun, that's neat. But calling larger sites a "cancerous growth on the web" just feels immature to me. Everything is just cost/benefit. There's no need to bring a black-and-white fanatical exaggerated mindset to it. You can celebrate something you like without having to make the alternative a disease , sheesh.
With all due respect. Modern news websites are a disease, and I find it pretty hard to disagree with the nomer cancerous growth since the behavior is spreading, and normalized by these websites.
There is zero benefit to me in loading 20mb of garbage just so I can read 10kb of text.