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

1MB Club

1mb.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 392 posts

Re: 1MB Club

#241

Post by IceHegel »

Unpopular opinion: I agree that all else equal a smaller bundle is better, but I don’t think “cancerous growth” gets at the core of why bundle sizes are growing.

Some part of the growth is bloat(analytics frameworks, janky animations, needless SPAs), but another factor driving bundle size is the fact that the raw web is mostly unaesthetic and unnatural to use, HN excepted.

The DOM being what it is, you need a lot of code to make it look like a native app, and I think it’s a noble goal to get as close as possible to native even if bundle sizes grow.

Re: 1MB Club

#242

Post by notJim »

Aeolun wrote: post #190
crazygringo wrote: post #163

I 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.

1) Many websites are not news sites. In fact, I'd guess the vast majority. So this point doesn't feel relevant.

2) Sometimes things might be useful to people other than you. The world doesn't exist to cater to your needs, and referring to things that aren't exactly what you want as cancerous is childish.

Re: 1MB Club

#243

Post by notJim »

I wish sites like this could take a positive tone instead of a negative one. Referring to sites that don't conform to your pet preferences as cancerous is deeply off-putting to me.

Re: 1MB Club

#244

Post by dylan604 »

SilasX wrote: post #160
charlesdaniels wrote: post #153

Earlier 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.

If you were able to calculate the space in the document flow for those images, I'm fine with the lazy loading. I hate when the page text appears rendered long enough that I start reading, but then lazily loaded items cause the flow to rearrange the text so that I lose my place.

Re: 1MB Club

#245

Post by Legion »

This reminds me of people who buy powerful machines, then run the most threadbare Linux environment possible and freak out anytime the machine's RAM and CPU aren't completely idle.

I do miss the lightweight early/mid 90s web sometimes, but I have no interest in artificial constraints that treat smallness as a virtue in and of itself.

Re: 1MB Club

#247

Post by toastercat »

seanwilson wrote: post #233

Here's my example of a non-trivial product landing page weighing in at 0.3MB transferred: https://www.checkbot.io/ Includes analytics, chat client, big product screenshot, theming and payment integration, so you can still do a lot well within 1MB.

Thanks for the example. Looks awesome! Great work.

Re: 1MB Club

#249

Post by opan »

e12e wrote: post #176
susam wrote: post #50

How accurate is this list? I see it mentions that visiting https://danluu.com/ downloads only 9.1 kB but when I actually visit this website with Google Chrome, in the Developer Tools' Network tab, I see that a total of 21.7 kB is transferred. Name Status Type Size ------------ ------ -------- -------- danluu.com 200 document 2.5 kB analytics.js 200 script 18.9 kB collect 200 xhr 67 B favicon.ico 404 text/html 266 B S…

Nice page. I only miss Firefox reader mode on these simple pages (for my preffered font size, and dark mode). I wonder if it's possible to hint to the browser that it should be available, even if the mark-up is simple? Ah, the late 90s and early 00s when we still had user.css (in a meaningful sense).

There's a way to force reader mode. Add "about:reader?url=" before your URL.

Re: 1MB Club

#250

Post by jameslk »

Unpopular truth: Lowering page weight doesn't often help web performance.

https://www.speedshop.co/2015/11/05/page-weight-doesnt-matte...

> Bandwidth is not the problem, and the performance of the web will not improve as broadband access becomes more widespread.

> The problem is latency. Most of our networking protocols require a lot of round-trips. Each of those round trips imposes a latency penalty. Latency is governed, at the end of the day, by the speed of light. Which means that latency isn’t going anywhere.

Of course, this will get downvoted on an all-text forum. That won't make it less true.

Post reply on HN