Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

mobiforge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 467 posts

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#221

Post by ArkyBeagle »

jordache wrote: post #213
harryf wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes What about the question "do web pages work any better than they did in 2007?" when we were using full page reloads and server side logic instead of Javascipt tricks. I see so much basic brokenness on the web today from the back button not working to horribly overloaded news websites with mystery-meat mobile navigation I find myself wondering what have we really a…

network latency still fails to catch up to human awareness' time resolution. client-side logic, done right is much improved over a server-side solution.

Which network and which latency? My local network runs audio way below the Haas limit - I can record over the network without incurring any latency penalty.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#222

Post by detaro »

cortesoft wrote: post #219
extrapickles wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latency of a new request as mentioned in one of those articles is the main reason why I self host everything. Since HTTPS needs an extra round trip to startup, it's now even more important to not CDN your libraries. The average bandwidth of a user is only going to go up, and their connection latency will remain the same. If you are making a SaaS product that business want, using CDNs also make it hard to offer a ente…

This might make sense, if all of your users are located near your web servers and you can comfortably handle the load of all the requests hitting your web servers. If the user making the request is in Australia, for example, and your web server is in the US, the user is going to be able to complete many round trip requests to the local CDN pop in Australia in the time it takes to make a single request to your server…

Or you use a CDN in front of your site, caching the content under your domain. But certainly something to be aware of.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#223

Post by ArkyBeagle »

StavrosK wrote: post #141
snowwrestler wrote: post #110

The Doom install image was 35x the size of the Apollo guidance computer. Thirty-five times! Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game. My point of course is that these comparisons are not actually that illuminating. Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes. This presentation very capably talks about that problem: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm Do…

That link inspires me to print and bind the code of a webpage into a book, and put it on a shelf next to other literature masterpieces. One Hundred Years of Solitude The Count of Monte Cristo Anna Karenina Don Quixote Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more

I want the audio version, narrated by Malcolm McDowell.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#224

Post by sugarfactory »

Google developed SPDY, an efficient binary representation of HTTP messages. Maybe they will do the same thing but for HTML. It would be much more efficient if one could design a binary representation of HTML that can only express well-formed HTML.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#225

Post by jmiserez »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #116
newjersey wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the checksum was the same and you accepted the cache hit if the checksum agrees and get your own copy if it doesn't? Maybe the application should get to declare a canonical URL for the js file instead of the browser? So something like https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.2/jquery.m... sha-256="31be012d5df7152ae6495decff603040b3cfb949f1d5cf0bf5498e9fc117d546"> Would this cause more problems than i…

> I'm concerned about people like me who use noscript selectively. How easy is it to create a malicious file that matches the checksum of a known file? SHA-256? Very, very, very, very hard. I don't believe there are any known attacks for collisions for SHA-256.

I think even a collision (any collision) has yet to found.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#226

Post by ArkyBeagle »

manaskarekar wrote: post #170
Eerie wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game. How many millions of man-hours Apollo project wasted for a PR stunt?

Mandatory: Benefits from Apollo [PDF] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/80660main_ApolloFS....

Principal benefit from Apollo: a sense of shared purpose that does not depend on human savagery.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#227

Post by blazespin »

snowwrestler wrote: post #110

The Doom install image was 35x the size of the Apollo guidance computer. Thirty-five times! Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game. My point of course is that these comparisons are not actually that illuminating. Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes. This presentation very capably talks about that problem: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm Do…

Pretty sure he was just being funny about the doom bit.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#228

Post by coolsunglasses »

soperj wrote: post #218
coolsunglasses wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>make sure our computer was set to 800x600 Thaaaaaaaat's nonsense. I had relatively high-res CRTs (1600x1200) in the late 90s and early 2000s. My father and I were able to get by with Netscape Navigator and Firefox for quite awhile as well.

Firefox was released in November 2004.

I know that. The date range was not exclusive. The point was that high resolution CRTs date quite a bit back even for consumer use. We had no problems browsing the web.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#229

Post by maerF0x0 »

This all comes down to cost. It is much cheaper to have "bloat" than it is to pay devs to fix it. And customers find it much cheaper to deal with "bloat" than to find smaller alternatives. Sure the average webpage is bigger than doom, but the CPU in my phone is approximately 100x (times multicore too?) than the 486 that ran Doom.

Sure, if man hours were free, we could trim it all down to (my rough guess) about 1/10th the size. But at $100 or even $10 an hour its just not worth it. Pay the GBs to your carrier, spend $50 more on a better phone.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#230

Post by ArkyBeagle »

snowwrestler wrote: post #110

The Doom install image was 35x the size of the Apollo guidance computer. Thirty-five times! Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game. My point of course is that these comparisons are not actually that illuminating. Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes. This presentation very capably talks about that problem: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm Do…

The Web is heavy because there's no negative feedback for the weight factor. And in people's minds, it nearly seems that the difference between a video game and history-altering exploration diminishes day by day.
Post reply on HN