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

Post by niutech » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 10:02 AM UTC

abiox wrote: post #313

Razengan wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a more radical departure is needed. It's about time to acknowledge that the web is increasingly being used to access full-blown applications more often than "webpages." Web browsers have more or less become mini operating systems, running elaborate virtual machines. There's way too much complexity for everyone involved — from web devs and browser devs to the users and the people who maintain the standards, th…

> Android/iOS/OSX/Windows should just work on a better standard mechanism to deliver native apps instead one might imagine that after these competing and incompatible native apps become a headache for crossplatform pursuits, a new platform will emerge that provides a uniform toolset for developing (mostly) native-platform independent applications. perhaps this toolset will utilize a declarative system for specifying…

Post by damptowel » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

datalist wrote: post #64

Not too long ago Medium pushed an "invisible" 1MB image to clients https://binarypassion.net/digital-decadence-6ea59251d64d and the video it refers to https://vimeo.com/147806338

Post by niutech » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

BafS wrote: post #371

K0nserv wrote: post #75

Quite happy with my own web page/blog. Pages hover at around 10kb, 30kb if I include some images. I think the page size can be attributed a lot to there being no JS except for GA. I have taken a lot of inspiration from http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ Of course the size will differ depending on the site's purpose, but I feel like most web pages could stand to loose a lot of…

I have begun a 1 ko framework based on this website, if anyone is interested, I just pushed the code right now https://github.com/BafS/mu

Post by niutech » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

Ruud-v-A wrote: post #39

ebbv wrote: post #6

I would argue two things: 1) This is an irrelevant statistic. 2) Even if this were true it's not that big of a deal. This is irrelevant because most people don't browse the average web page. They browse the top few sites on the internet and that's it. A more relevant statistic would be what have the sizes of the top 50 sites been over the last 15 years. I imagine they still may have grown on average, but download spe…

I care. I know a lot of people (here in western Europe) who are on a 1 GiB/month data plan. 2.2 MiB per page means that you can visit 15 pages per day. Better think twice before you click a link. Besides, 2.2 MiB for a page is pure bloat. Unless the page is heavy on images, you can usually fit all of the content that matters in a tenth of the size. In 300 KiB you can fit a 500-word article with 160 KiB picture, a few…

Post by niutech » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #229

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…