Can you guys stop spamming the guy's github issues page?
[deleted]
1MB Club
41–50 of 392 posts
Re: 1MB Club
#42I'm pretty happy with my bloated mess. Glad youtube and Spotify aren't limited to 1meg Glad Google Maps lets me view the world in 3D and with street views and make custom maps, and read reviews with photos, etc. Don't care that it takes more than 1meg. Love Apple's beautiful pages like the Macbook Air page at 14meg
I don't think anyone is going to argue that there are sites that provide huge utility in exchange for their size. No one is suggesting we google maps should clock in at less than a MB. But the point is that there's a continuing trend of websites' sizes growing much faster than their functionality - often with the former to the detriment of the latter.
Re: 1MB Club
#43Here's the disconnect, which is why these "webpages need to be slim!" sites tend to make me think they're greybeard nostalgia for an internet that doesn't really exist anymore.
Your 1mb webpage is approximately 60ms worth of Disney+ streaming.
Your 1mb webpage is approximately 1.7s worth of Zoom chat.
Your 1mb webpage is approximately 1.9s worth of Tiktok video.
Unless you are specifically targeting low-bandwidth users, you need to worry about product market fit long before you worry about slimming your js bundles down.
Re: 1MB Club
#44In an age of 4k streaming being frugal with 1MB websites for the sake of it is kind of missing the point. Yes, we should care how we build stuff, and we should not use resources like there is no tomorrow, but on HN there is a sentiment that basically says that everything on the web after year ~2010 is terrible, hard to use and wasteful.
Re: 1MB Club
#45Ahh let the bikeshedding continue.
In these situations all I want to say is "Who cares".
Optimization matters when it actually solves a problem, before that it's just wasted effort.
I don't hear the general public yelling from the rooftops "The web is too slow! Developers are building too fast! I wish we could go backwards!"
Re: 1MB Club
#46In 2005 I had to fill in a form to request a page size exception for our election results map on the BBC News site. The page weight was going to be just a little under 400kb. At the time the size considered acceptable for the whole page (images and all) was 75kb.
kb or kB?
Assuming kB and dialup, which was 83% of the US at the time (easiest stat to quickly find), that was a difference of about 23s vs 121s load time.
Edit: Seems like the UK would have been about 50/50 around that time according to this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/broadband-o...
Re: 1MB Club
#47Nice to know of CNN lite, had never heard of it before.
Indeed. Also, much less of an attention sink, and lynx-friendly. Are there more news websites like this?
Re: 1MB Club
#48In some ways it's interesting to think that a modern website is larger than most operating systems used to be.
I can understand why (frameworks, rich assets, etc) but it puts us in an interesting place.
I wonder what the web will look like in 2030?
Re: 1MB Club
#49Had to upvote, since I'm currently building a quite complex web application (using Svelte) for which I'm trying to restrict myself to 1Mb JS uncompressed (including SVG paths).
To do this, there is almost no runtime dependencies - while I "lost" a few months building things I could borrow from bigger libraries (from parts of rxjs to much bigger component libraries/design systems), development speed is now excellent!
Currently sitting at 750kb and close to feature completion so I'm pretty sure that it will be achieved.
Re: 1MB Club
#50How 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