41–50 of 105 posts
There are many ways to accelerate page speed and, like everything else, it's a question of costs and benefits. For most things, some level of technical debt is OK and CDNs even for jQuery are good. Of course, good design and setting things up right is always the best - and the other question is where your site traffic comes from.
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…
Relevant paper: "Polaris: Faster Page Loads Using Fine-grained Dependency Tracking", http://web.mit.edu/ravinet/www/polaris_nsdi16.pdf
Argh, don't people Google names before using them? Polaris was HP's virus-safe Windows project: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-221.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I'm a webdev. I had to speed up web e-mail client, written in angular.js. Besides splitting huge request into couple smaller, async ones (huuge speed improvement) I've also switched downloading files from CDN to app server itself - that gives additional 4sec (sic!) shorter load time.
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…
A guy who I used to post with wrote a new forum for us all to post on (woo splinter groups). It's pretty cool. One of the things it does is serve a static image of the underlying youtube and then load it on click. When a 'tube might be quoted 7 times on a page - that's a pretty useful trick.
I'd just assumed this was a standard forum feature and then I opened a "Music Megathread" on an ipboard and holy shit loading 30 youtube players was painful.
Talk to some people in the porn industry. They will tell you how important fast pages are. You will also be surprised what they have done to achieve this.
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…
> 1.22MB embedded youtube players A guy who I used to post with wrote a new forum for us all to post on (woo splinter groups). It's pretty cool. One of the things it does is serve a static image of the underlying youtube and then load it on click. When a 'tube might be quoted 7 times on a page - that's a pretty useful trick. I'd just assumed this was a standard forum feature and then I opened a "Music Megathread" on…
you're much better off just serving an html5 tag. you can likely fit your entire video in mobile quality in that 1.22MB :D
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1.22MB embedded youtube players A guy who I used to post with wrote a new forum for us all to post on (woo splinter groups). It's pretty cool. One of the things it does is serve a static image of the underlying youtube and then load it on click. When a 'tube might be quoted 7 times on a page - that's a pretty useful trick. I'd just assumed this was a standard forum feature and then I opened a "Music Megathread" on…
yes, you can lazy-load the youtube player, there's also a jquery plugin for it [1]. but this setup requires 2 clicks to play on mobile (because google restricts the player from autoplaying onload in mobile devices due to bandwidth/data-usage concerns). the first click will appear to do nothing as it loads the 1.22MB player, so delivers a crap experience. you're much better off just serving an html5 tag. you can likel…
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…
One gripe: the canonical CDNs may have the library already cached from your visits to other sites, which is faster. 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?