Live data from Hacker News

Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

engineering.fb.com

21–30 of 489 posts

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#21
post #11
post #2

It looks a lot like the new Twitter. I guess the new trend is just to show multiple tabs from the mobile app at once as the desktop site.

it is yahoo from the 90s https://cdn.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/... Nothing new under the sun

The Yahoo I knew and loved from the 90s manifested as a web directory:

https://www.ttcs.tt/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/screenshot-of...

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#22

Quite 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 of CSS is needed to justify that headcount.

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#23
post #5

I have been using Facebook for like +10years. Facebook used to be reference for speed and usability. I left it ~4 years ago. Last day I entered again for curiosity. It's so sad. Strange interface, slow, unresponsive. It's sad.

Facebook used to be reference for speed and usability

On web, for a while. Remember when Facebook's iPhone app came out, it was a disaster. It was so slow, I could open the app, then take the elevator down to the basement of my building, drop off some outgoing mail, and return to my apartment before it finished updating the news feed. It was legendary in its time for its slowness.

At first, nobody complained because there weren't a lot of "apps" available. But then all the other apps came out, and everyone complained for years that all the other app-building companies could build responsive apps, but Facebook couldn't.

Then one day Facebook updated its app and it was a little better. Then another update came and it was good enough, and everyone stopped complaining and forgot.

Last day I entered again for curiosity. It's so sad. Strange interface, slow, unresponsive. It's sad.

I only use Facebook once a week, to update the page for a web site I manage. It is terribly slow on web. On both of the computers I use it on, loading the first page takes upwards of 15 seconds. Clicking on the text field to enter a new post takes eight to ten seconds for the editor to load.

I don't know how people who are addicted to Facebook manage to use it so much without going mad.

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#24
post #6
post #3

Great write up. Glad to see they're making some changes as the current interface still feels like 2005 with the main feed at 500px wide. And as always, dark mode is welcome. I really hope this helps performance on the site. In the past year or so I've been noticing that when the page sits in an unfocused tab for a while, clicking back usually takes 20+ seconds to actually load and I'm stuck at a white screen. It actu…

> And as always, dark mode is welcome. I don't get this infatuation with dark mode, beyond it looking cool. People claim it helps with eye strain, but a brighter background constricts your pupils, improving focus.

It never occurred to me that this could be the reason for dark mode blurriness, but it makes sense intuitively. (Think you mean "constricts" rather than "dilates" though.)

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#26
post #6
post #3

Great write up. Glad to see they're making some changes as the current interface still feels like 2005 with the main feed at 500px wide. And as always, dark mode is welcome. I really hope this helps performance on the site. In the past year or so I've been noticing that when the page sits in an unfocused tab for a while, clicking back usually takes 20+ seconds to actually load and I'm stuck at a white screen. It actu…

> And as always, dark mode is welcome. I don't get this infatuation with dark mode, beyond it looking cool. People claim it helps with eye strain, but a brighter background constricts your pupils, improving focus.

I think people might have different sensitivities to this issue. Before I changed everything to dark mode, I had trouble concentrating on a bright screen especially in a dimly lit room. Dark mode feels like a total game changer for my productivity.

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#27
post #4

This is 100% incidental complexity. It's painful to consider that this level of sophisticated engineering is needed to render a website quickly in 2020. What went wrong? I'm personally excited about things like turbolinks and phoenix liveview, which may provide a path out of this mess.

Facebook rendered just fine a decade ago. What changed between now and then, in terms of actual improvement to end user experience, to make it so slow this kind of crap is needed? My guess is: - Desire to offload more processing to end user machines to save compute - More and more ads and user analytics in order to pick which ads to show - More engineers that irrationally hate the simplicity of PHP Duct tape on top o…

Duct tape on top of abstractions on top of duct tape in order to make a document platform behave like an application platform. Isn't it time to just replace web browsers with something that doesn't suck?

It's not the browsers that suck, it's what companies like Facebook do with browsers that sucks. And then all the other non-thinking middle managers in other companies who want to copy these terrible things because they're incapable of leadership.

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#28
post #13

Did they fix the "back" button? (I.e. if you click a link in the middle of a feed, then "back", do you get back at the same position in the feed?)

My guess is that they have a/b tested that if you remove the item from the feed user clicked, users become "more engaged" i.e. frustratingly scrolling to find the place where they were.

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#29
post #5

I have been using Facebook for like +10years. Facebook used to be reference for speed and usability. I left it ~4 years ago. Last day I entered again for curiosity. It's so sad. Strange interface, slow, unresponsive. It's sad.

Facebook used to be reference for speed and usability On web, for a while. Remember when Facebook's iPhone app came out, it was a disaster. It was so slow, I could open the app, then take the elevator down to the basement of my building, drop off some outgoing mail, and return to my apartment before it finished updating the news feed. It was legendary in its time for its slowness. At first, nobody complained because…

On their phones, perhaps? At least we already know that testing it on a computer browser is not testing it for the majority user.

Re: Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

#30

Quite 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.
Post reply on HN