21–30 of 105 posts
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
Relevant paper: "Polaris: Faster Page Loads Using Fine-grained Dependency Tracking", http://web.mit.edu/ravinet/www/polaris_nsdi16.pdf
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
Yeah the problem really isn't the technology, it's our poor use of it.
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
Example 900+ comment page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11116274
Example 2200+ comment page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201
So, uh, what does it do? I mean, I can't even tell if it's a server or client side change.
The research paper[1] describes Polaris. Basically, you have to make large, sweeping changes to your html, server side. Instead of your original page + js references, you serve a bunch of javascript that then dynamically recreates your page on the client side in the most performant way that it can: • The scheduler itself is just inline JavaScript code. • The Scout dependency graph for the page is represented as a Jav…
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
I wish that web browsers would use content addressing to load stuff and do SRIs. If I already loaded a javascript file from another url, why load it again?
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that, in real usage, it is cheaper to load common libraries from a CDN because in a public CDN (for something like jQuery), the library is likely to already be cached from another website and has a chance to even already have an SSL connection to the CDN.
Obviously 60 separate CDNs is excessive, but I don't know if the practice altogether is a bad idea.
but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…
> stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that, in real usage, it is cheaper to load common libraries from a CDN because in a public CDN (for something like jQuery), the library is likely to already be cached from another website and has a cha…
another important reason i personally don't use CDNs is the privacy of my users.