What does /g/ think of web bloat? For reference the "2012

>>57921233
Web bloat isn't a real issue when HTTP supports gzip. Also, websockets allow requests to be aggregated and bundled eliminating the overhead in establishing and tearing down a new connection for every request.

>>57921250
Isn't this like saying "my cars not falling apart; it's held together with duct tape"?

Besides, unzipping and then rendering the page will likely erase any benefit from having a smaller size sent through the series of tubes.

>>57921250
Or just not send all the stuff in the first place, web dev.

>>57921327
>Isn't this like saying "my cars not falling apart; it's held together with duct tape"?
Not really.

First of all, the infographic with "average web page" doesn't really say anything. What is that, "average web request"? How did they measure this? Average as in mean? What is the distribution? Normal?

Secondly, from 2010 to 2015 we have gone from 1 Gb/s being state of the art to 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s are becoming common now too.

>Besides, unzipping and then rendering the page will likely erase any benefit from having a smaller size sent through the series of tubes.
No, because bandwidth is the bottleneck, not CPU or frame rates.

>>57921532
Your browser is supposed to handle client-side caching anyway.

Is it possible to make the website so that when it is partially loaded that everything is in the spot where it will be when fully loaded rather than having shit jump all over the place as the rest of the site loads? I fucking hate when I'm about to click a link but then other stuff loads and there link keeps fucking jumping around...

>>57921588
>Is it possible to make the website so that when it is partially loaded that everything is in the spot where it will be when fully loaded rather than having shit jump all over the place as the rest of the site loads?
Yes. This is why <img> tags support height and width attributes.

>>57921598
It's crazy how many professional corporate websites can't do this then. Every goddam time the link jumps away and I click the wrong thing.

>>57921575
>Your browser is supposed to handle client-side caching anyway.

Which is only required because of all the stuff you're sending.

>40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s are becoming common now in the city coffee shops I go to

Fixed.

>>57921609
Well, programmers are in general despicable people and half of them are lazy and/or incompetent.

>>57921630
>Which is only required because of all the stuff you're sending.
Why are you even browsing a IMAGE board if you don't like images on the web?

>>57921651
It's not about images on an image board. It's about 1080p html5 ads on a website where i go for text content (ie news websites).

>>57921588
Not with more shitty browser hacks because HTML is trash and always has been. The "tree" structure is downright lousy for rendering content in any sort of efficient way.

>>57921690
>It's about 1080p html5 ads on a website where i go for text content (ie news websites).
Just get adblock. The html5 ads are third party anyway, usually news sites have no influence over them except placement. Just look at the requests, they go to third-party domains and often download agent code which is potentially harmful.

This is not a problem with modern web, this is a problem with news websites being retards.

File: smug anime girl.png (175KB, 482x475px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 482x475px

>>57921690
Get an adblocker you homo

>>57921690
The thing is that for an imageboard 4chan is incredibly bloated before you even get to the images. We've gotten to the point where images are not what is taking up the bandwidth any more, it's Javascript and other content that pulls in. A wikipedia page has more Javascript than all the other resources put together.

But your second sentence brings up another point in modern web design where a page can straight up not work at all without scripts. You'll just get a big page of white.

>>57921575
I don't want my cpu cycles spent unzipping your bloated shithole of a site

>>57921773
>I don't want my cpu cycles spent unzipping your bloated shithole of a site
So you would rather waste cpu cycles pulling data from your NIC into RAM instead?

>>57921735
true that

>>57921792
No I want competent people building websites

>>57921826
No, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that you want old-fashioned text-only web sites without any form of interactive content.

Just admit it you homo.

>>57921837
fuck you, macfaggot. Literally nobody thinks your "interactive content" adds anything. Just give me the content I want

>>57921826
Question: How much interactive content would you accept as "not too much" in a web page? and where would you add it?

>>57921837

Ignore him, hes a T-series ThinkPad user who still uses a Celeron processor.

>>57921837
most websites could stand to lose 80% of the "interactive" crap and still be 100% usable.

>>57921853

>if you don't want text-only websites you're a Mac user

Not even you believe that, how dumb are you?

>>57921853
>interactive content doesn't add anything
>posting on an interactive discussion forum with webm support for posting pictures of chinese cartoons and arguing with a stranger on the other side of the globe in real-time

>open up some Tumblr link
>browser freezes, enture experience is really unpleasant
>open up some shitty old website that haven't had it's layout been updated since like 2005
>it's a treat to use despite looking like total shit

Man I hate the internet these days.

>>57921865
Newspapers are 100% usable too, but why would you want physical newspapers when you can read the latest news updated in real time online?

>>57921860
Nah, I've got a haswell i7, no real problems loading the content. I just find most "interactive content" just gets in the way.
Also this shit is what keeps $200 chromebooks with from being super useful. If you manually whitelist scripts/xhrs etc pretty much every site loads fine

>>57921886
Because these days newspaper are more easy and pleasant to read.

>>57921904
Just enable JavaScript and images you paranoid delusional. Are you some kind of masochist that block everything except text?

>>57921575
>40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s are becoming common now too.
Dude I still get <10mbps fuck you.

>>57921893
also raspberry pi's fall into that category too

>>57921873
This

>>57921921
What, no I mean, with how websites are formatted these days newspapers are generally a treat to read in comparison.

>>57921873
>implying 95% of "interactive content" isn't fucking trash bloat
I never said 4chan was bloated,

>>57921763
>But your second sentence brings up another point in modern web design where a page can straight up not work at all without scripts. You'll just get a big page of white.
Lol whenever I load up a link and it's just white because noscript has pwnt it I just close the tab. Nothing of value was lost.

>>57921837
>went to top news story of new york times
>turn off all ad blocking and script blocking
>7MB
>84 JS requests at 5MB
>turn off ads and all script
>900KB of CSS
>turn off THAT
>133KB for just HTML and images
>but the actual news article is 1.5KB of text

TL;DR: kill yourself

>>57921937
Get some glasses then or enable universal design (virtually all modern websites have this option these days).

>>57921967
>new york times
>surprised the actual news article is minimal
kek

liberal cuck spotted

>>57921977
Will it stop the content being built around ads and having no character limit?

>>57921977
>enable universal design
how do I access this?

>>57921991
Don't be a coward. Attack the point I was making.

>>57921996
No, but "built around ads" isn't a problem with modern website design. This is a problem with funding.

>>57921967
You faggots are acting like invasive banners and ads and paid content is a problem of web design.

>>57922005
It's a browser setting, usually. Your browser will embed some x-meta-string thingy in HTTP requests.

>>57921640
thread

>>57922046
You don't have a point. JavaScript and CSS should be cached if you don't deliberately restrict yourself. Ads are not a problem within the domain of web design, it's in the domain of news funding.

>>57922051
>No, but "built around ads" isn't a problem with modern website design. This is a problem with funding.

I'll remember that when I'm reading something hidden between 6 different next buttons.

>>57922088
>I'll remember that when I'm reading something hidden between 6 different next buttons.
That's your average clickbait website, would hardly count as a "news" article.

Read this: http://www.sciencealert.com/bad-news-study-finds-80-of-students-can-t-tell-the-difference-between-real-and-fake-news

>>57922088
>6 different next buttons.

Stop reading clickbait you retard

It's a real problem that won't get better any time soon, if ever.
Thanks to 'responsive design', botnet js tracker and ads the size of websites will increase. Just look at all these clusterfuck js libraries. Who in his right mind would use that garbage? 'Modern' webdevs of course.
For all I care we should go back to web 1.0. For most sites it wouldn't matter.
Just install NoScript. If the sites is broken, just don't visit it anymore. You're doing yourself a favor this way.

>>57922051
>This is a problem with funding.

Why not just not send so much shit down the line and cut the costs of funding drastically? Even if you only enable first-party scripts you still balloon the site's size dramatically.

> a problem of web design.

They didn't appear out of thin air.

>>57922085
>cached

From where? The website.

Which I just downloaded it all from.

Do you think the "cache" is something that's inherent to the browser?

>>57922151
>Just install NoScript. If the sites is broken, just don't visit it anymore. You're doing yourself a favor this way.
This.

File: 1479887810334.jpg (216KB, 500x500px)

216KB, 500x500px

>>57922051
>It's a browser setting, usually. Your browser will embed some x-meta-string thingy in HTTP requests.
link me I can't find it

>>57922127
>>57922149
That's where a lot of news is these days.

But I was also thinking about the fact that legit news site generally cut up a lot of news stories into multiple links so you'll see more adds.

I mean, sure if new big news rolls around but you don't have to make a new link just to say "oh and btw, the murder might or might not have been influenced by video games".

>>57922168
>Why not just not send so much shit down the line and cut the costs of funding drastically
Are you seriously implying that shaving of a few bits here and there is anything compared to, you know, paying journalists and editors to do their job?

>From where? The website.
>Which I just downloaded it all from.
Are you deliberately acting stupid or are you genuinely retarded. Refresh the site and see the network traffic you moron.

>>57922151
>If the sites is broken, just don't visit it anymore.
>not writing your own userscripts and stylesheets to make it work

>>57922186
>just don't visit 99% of websites, not a problem

Hell just disabling the refereed header broke shit like there was no tomorrow for me.

>>57922221
>>just don't visit 99% of websites, not a problem
Er, nah
Tbh if nothing shows up from noscript you don't want to be on the site.
A lot of stuff won't show up though, which is what you're going for. Now if you want some video player to load you enable 1st party scripts and/or scripts from the CDN hosting the video. It's not that difficult really and cuts down on a lot of shit.

>>57922219
I don't see the point when the content is basically the same on every result I get. Hell, even reddit comment sections are usually more informative than traditional news sites.

>>57922221
99% of the web is pure shit.

>>57922200
Which browser do you have? Chrome might need some (Google maintained) accessibility plugins, Firefox have some built in and need plugin for other while Safari has a broad range of such features.

>>57922290
Not nothing but it does break the sites a lot. At least the few times I've used it.

>>57922295
>99% of the web is pure shit
Yes. And then you want to add another layer where you can only use 1% of those 1% of websites that are kinda useful.

>>57922302
chrome, tried a couple extensions from the appstore none of them had options for that type of header

>>57921233
it's awful. The web is basically a giant malicious javascript resource-hogging spyware clusterfuck now.

All this effort just so they can serve you shitty ads, it's fucking pathetic. I'm amazed anyone makes money at it.

>>57922213
>Refresh the site and see the network traffic you moron.

You are directly avoiding the point. Clearing the cache provides a clear slate in order to measure the weight of the page. Whether I got it from the home page or that page doesn't matter; it's still 5MB of Javascript.

But I'll humor you:
Homepage: 5.6MB (clear cache, as if I was visiting for the first time)
Now that is all loaded in to my cache, so the news page should be tiny
News page (1.5KB of text, remember): 3.3MB (primed cache, giving you the benefit of the doubt)

Choke on shards of glass for defending this shit.

File: ob.048.jpg (933KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 1920x1080px

What's /g/'s excuse for not starting their own ad agency?

>>57922295
Websites with good content will usually be javascripped out the ass, or will be paywalled.

I'd prefer everything were paywalled and I'd just have to buy what I want, honestly.

>>57922378
My neighbour started one a few years ago and that was my first job ever interning at 18
I hope you ran some of my learned-on-the-fly javascript : ^ )

>>57922356
>You are directly avoiding the point.
The fucking point was request size you dense illiterate fuck.

Caches demonstratively reduce request size. So does using agent code (JavaScript) to refresh content and do alignment stuff instead of using images.

If you have a problem with local storage for websites, then why the FUCK are you on 4chan. 4chan issues cache directives for every single fucking thumbnail to be stored for two weeks.

>>57922426
So you're why my browser is constantly hogging 8gb of ram...

>>57922500
No, the reason why is this: >>57921640

Google Chrome with 25 open tabs never use more than a couple of hundred megs. Use a proper browser not written by Pajeets, anon.

>>57922500
>complains about memory size
>but still doesn't want to waste CPU cycles on zipping and swapping out inactive data

>>57922529
>Google Chrome with 25 open tabs never use more than a couple of hundred megs. Use a proper browser not written by Pajeets, anon.
I am using a chromium based browser. The problem is it never frees cached shit from closed tabs. This is a big problem when virtually every page loads up HD video content.

>>57922552
Or just don't cause the problem in the first place that requires all this hackery to get it to not be a total merry-go-round shitshow?

Why is this such an alien concept to you? Just don't cause the problem.

>>57922584
Chrome doesn't have this problem

>>57922600
See >>57921837 and >>57921873

Either stop using 4chan or at least admit that you are just reminiscing about the BBS era

>>57921233
what better way to democratize the web then by enforcing a tired series of web standards that are constantly changed by Google and Microsoft? I mean, how useful is the DOM! XML syntax is so easy to understand lets make everything conform to JSON.

File: c2e8ed0aafda1e117600dd8be4306aa3.jpg (13KB, 236x267px)

13KB, 236x267px

>>57921233
The older I get the more bloat and complexity bothers me

>>57922695
DOn't forget OAuth, it's got Open in the name so it's definitely Open.

I never understood how /g/ could have a hissy fit over a few extra KBs in HTTP requests when they insist watching 4k 10-bit anime in a lossless (or, even preferably, raw) format.

>>57922645
>text only web sites
Web sites were never text only. The <img> tag was there from the start. What you perhaps mean are static pages, but I can't see why you'd dislike them so much. Not every site needs (nor should have) interactivity, and even then it doesn't have to come from multiple JSs from multiple domains.

>webm support
The difference is that if I browse on a piece of software that can't play the webms I can still view the site. They have no inherent draw on my system's resources.

>pictures
We've covered this.

>real-time
Nope.

>reminiscing about the BBS era

Spoiler: 4chan is a BBS.

I'm thinking all webpages should have their content in a machine readable format so Google can be richer. I mean, I love spending my time conforming to some random multinational's standard so that they can reduce operating costs. I think it's best for everyone that Google has the money to sit on the top industry talent.

>>57922748
False equivalence.

>>57922773
>Spoiler: 4chan is a BBS.
It's not. BBSes are distributed, 4chan is not.

>>57922748
>4k 10-bit anime
>HEVC too

That's a big meme

I downsample them to 480p or 720p and re-encode them to comfy 8bit H.264

HEVC is a shit

File: 2-21-2013 9-42-09 PM.jpg (61KB, 851x663px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 851x663px

>>57922696
BAHAHAHA
I cackled out loud over that one.

>>57922792
>BBSes are distributed

Only by implementation, not by design. Common BBS software is designed to run on a single piece of hardware at a specific address (once a telephone number).

>>57922783
Why do we even have access to typing in the URL anymore? That should be considered breaking DMCA.

File: Selection_033.png (81KB, 600x563px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x563px

>>57922645
>Chrome doesn't have this problem
Go ahead and add up all that memory use for "Iron" I got 59%.

>>57922696
Complexity is a meme.

You can tie an absolute shit-heap of a knot and call it "complex" but it doesn't make it a good knot. The best implementation is usually the most simple. You know, the NASA-Pencil parable.

>>57922847
What's wrong with using a bit of your extra RAM to store Google state? Servers are expensive. I'm sure you agreed to it in the EULA.

>>57922847
Use 'free -h' as its easier to read.

>>57922864
A bit? I have 1gb of free ram on a machine with 16gb and most of that is being used by my fucking browser. This shit is retarded.

>>57921928
It's not like could afford a NIC capable of those speeds anyway.

2.5gbps and 5gbps ethernet is coming, but 40gbps and 100gbps links are still reserved for data centers and ISP backbone.

>>57922830
Backpedalling much? You know what a BBS is, why are you wasting my time making me explain in detail why a web page differs from a BBS?

>>57922773
>Web sites were never text only. The <img> tag was there from the start
I was talking about Gopher vs HTTP. Gopher was designed around interactive user actions, whereas HTTP was designed to just transfer HTML documents in simple request-reply messages.

>What you perhaps mean are static pages
No, I meant text-centric pages for which HTML was designed.

>>57922881
Think about it this way, you have more RAM then Google had in their entire infrastructure at one point. It would be selfish if you didn't use it to help distribute AdWord load.

Who remembers the Internet before the WWW?

>>57922847
Chrome uses 417 MB on my system now.

>>57921233
The web should have never gone beyond this.
http://rise.cse.iitm.ac.in/shakti.html

>>57921233
I wonder how much of that is due to ads

>>57922861
I thought that's what he was saying

>ads are the real problem
>/g/ blames web developers and request sizes

Good goyims

>>57922200
Do you have any more shots of typical web devs?

>>57923052
You should ask the guy that responds
>t. mactoddler

and
>fruity gay os

in every mac thread for a pic of what he looks like. I've read that he claims to be a web dev previously.

>>57921327
Negrotory.

Network i/o is magnitudes larger than the computational time for gzip decompress

>browser cacheing
>using my computer as your fucking pack mule
>so you can then send me more shit
>and you pay less for it
>but here I am with my fans going full tilt and losing available memory
>this is considered acceptable

Fuck modern websites, and fuck the browser developers that allowed this shit. If you can't afford to send me all the shit you keep trying to send me, don't send me the shit. Don't use my computer as your fucking crutch so you can continue to bloat everything up.

Client-side scripts are already cancerous anyway by making the one who is visiting bear the brunt of the site rather than the SERVER.
"Hi, I'm a server."
"What do you do?"
"I give you work to do."

>>57922426
>The fucking point was request size you dense illiterate fuck.

The fucking point is that NONE OF THIS SHIT SHOULD BE THIS LARGE IN THE FIRST GOD DAMN PLACE.

We've past the point where web pages are larger and require more horsepower to render then a fucking PostScript file filled with EPS artwork and high resolution TIFF photos.

The web stack needs to be burned straight to the ground and recreated, and if that means 90% of current web devs are pushed into other non-IT fields then it will be even better.

>>57923114
>afford to send me
Uh, client-side caching is to speed up the process client-side.

The cost of data caps is usually something CLIENTS pay for, not content providers.

Also, your idea that all processing should be done on the server is the cancer that lead to cloud computing so fuck you right back asswipe.

>>57921598
learned something today

>>57923036
Sites work without ads.

It's becoming more recurring that a site just doesn't work without javascript.

Besides, ad agencies at least are honest in being slime, web developers try to act like they're providing the world a massive favor.

>>57923120
>4.6 MB is large
Are you for real?

>>57923154
What really pisses me off is that sites used to pay attention to this. Now? Shit jumps all over the page because they're using 5MB of js libraries that re-arrange the page once everything is loaded.

File: 197281_v2.jpg (219KB, 1200x627px)

219KB, 1200x627px

>>57923166
4mb for text is acceptable.

>>57923166
>4.6MB
>5x larger then the entire Macintosh System 6 operating system
>all for a fucking newspaper length article
Are YOU for real?

>>57923166
4.6MB is huge.

War and Peace as a HTML file is only 3.9MB.

We're talking about web pages, not fucking 4K video.

>>57923219
But you're democratizing the web.

>>57923200
As >>57921967 said,

7 MB for textual content + CSS + images used in the article + executable code + fucking cancer ads is fucking super impressive.

It's really a testament to how well modern compression techniques work. When I was younger, a 640x960 JPEG 2 porn picture would be around 6-7 MB, now you get an entire news article and all its content in it.

I really don't understand how you guys can sit here and claim that modern web pages are bloated. Sure you get MORE content, but the content itself is hypercompressed through the use of modern formats.

>>57921233
It would be cool if sites gave you the option of a relatively paintext experience or just-fuck-my-shit-up-senpai mode

>>57923278
>yfw soon the paid version of a site will just be static html files

>>57923214
>>57923219
See >>57923274

It's not at all huge.

>>57923166
>>4.6 MB is large

4 000 000 bytes. My shitpost is 73 bytes.

>>57923274
>but the content itself is hypercompressed through the use of modern formats.
which is why you need an i7 to browse the web comfortably

>>57923214
You could literally transmit the Mini vMac emulator, a ROM file, a fully functioning startup disk, and draw the web page to the emulator screen using fucking C and Apple's QuickDraw and come in at under half the size of a modern web page.

Fucking hell...the first version of Adobe Photoshop took <600K WITH the damn manual!

>>57923307
See >>57923274

>>57923299
You are the cancer that killed the web.

>>57923299
Yes it fucking is.

>>57923299

Scale it.

>>57923248
I'm fucking not. If I had my way technology would be a fascist dictatorship.

>tfw this entire page is 25kb

>>57923338
What do you mean? Modern web servers are able to handle millions of simultaneous requests and hundreds of thousands of concurrent users on consumer-grade hardware.

I mean, fucking instagram ran on a Core 2 Duo machine in one of the founder's flat until they reached around 1M users.

>>57923347
REEEEEE BLOOOOOOAAAATEDDDDD!!!!!!!

>>57923364
>server can handle 100k requests
>client goes into thermal shutdown with three open tabs

THANKS PAJEET

>>57921609
I've noticed a pattern: the bigger and more "professional" the company, the more dogshit their products and especially websites are.

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-10 01:50:58.png (52KB, 751x253px)

52KB, 751x253px

>>57923377

>>57923274
>When I was younger, a 640x960 JPEG 2 porn picture would be around 6-7 MB,
kek. These faggots don't realize you're being sarcastic

>>57923389
I bet you think """"cloud processing"""" is an inherently good idea, don't you?

>>57923320
Compression makes things even shittier.

>>57923412
I'm not, stop projecting.

In 1994 I would spend several minutes trying to download a high resolution JPEG over a shitty 144 kb/s ISDN line.

>>57923377
>>57923347
>clear all cache
>close firefox
>reopen with just this site
>244MB

Christ, am I angry about modern computing.

>>57923389
>web bloated shit due to coffee-swigging "bootcamp" web developers
>software bloated shit due to street shitting Rajeeshs

File: Selection_035.png (6KB, 639x49px)

6KB, 639x49px

>facebook tab, not even logged in: 139mb
>youtube front page, no video even loaded: 100mb
Yep web's not bloated at all we can all go home guys.

>>57923485
And in 1991 I would spend several minutes trying to download a high-resolution GIF over a 36.6 baud modem, doesn't make your fucking jpegs 10MB and it doesn't make the modern web unbloated.

alright, enough with impotent screetching
what can one do about it?

File: Selection_036.png (5KB, 860x22px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 860x22px

Pic related lol. This thread is hogging 70mb of memory.

>>57923516
i don't think you know what this thread is about if you believe this image is relevant.

go back to studying for your theatre arts major pls

>>57923568
>>57923516
I just want to know what that is composed of. Like, if you could save that to disk what would it look like.

Because I can only imagine they have every resource available for the browser loaded for every tab.

>>57923544
Infiltrate environmentalist boards. Tell them about how much in the way of resources is needed for all this and watch them burn down data centres and start-ups all over the world.

>>57923416
>I bet you think """"cloud processing"""" is an inherently good idea, don't you?
No. I think fast code and efficient data structures are a good idea.

>>57923602
>yes goy a 4chan thread being allocated 70mb of memory is not an issue, ignore it

>>57923642
>Infiltrate environmentalist boards. Tell them about how much in the way of resources is needed for all this and watch them burn down data centres and start-ups all over the world.

This...this might actually work!

>Posts: 144 / IPs: 32
ITT: samefag

>>57923705
>32 people talking
>"samefag"

>>57921250
...unless you're sending data not responsive to compression, like already compressed images/etc.

Let's face it, you don't send a megabyte per page of just text, except for extreme edge cases.

>>57923120
PostScript is probably one of the best things no one uses anymore.

Why bother dragging down the browser with heavy JS PDF readers when rendering a .ps file is easy as cake and a fraction of the size to send? This is the kind of things that actually add value to the web rather than shitty animated menus that don't lead anywhere good anyway.

>>57923705
>>Posts: 144 / IPs: 32
>ITT: samefag
A few anons arguing back and forth = samefag?
I thought that's called discussion.

>>57923688
Also communists and Marxists because only large corporations benefit from javascript and ads.

>>57923739
PDF is good for as-is presentation.

In-browser anything is rarely ever good though.

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-09 17-32-12.png (413KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1920x1080px

is 77.1 KB for a blog "bloated"?

I really like to have the web fonts, it could be much smaller without them but open sans is very good. Should i try to strip down more?

File: hqdefault.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>57923864
>In-browser anything is rarely ever good though.

Hate how talking about this makes me sound like an idiot these days. "Wow, this video is really dragging my system down," they say playing a video in the browser. Then you can cut it down to an absolute fraction of system draw by using a dedicated program for playing video.

But they look at me like I'm a moron.

>Why not take the complex and intensive file...And run it somewhere else!

>>57921250
I can't even tell if this is bait or just genuinely stupid. Both of those statements are false.

GZIP means nothing because the size served still increased, even after compression.

Websockets have nothing to do with aggregating and bundling requests. The overhead of establishing and tearing down connections was already solved with HTTP keepalives.

>>57923930
How many gb does it load from external servers?

>>57923930
A good measure of bloat is if your extras are larger than the content.

The content, in this case, is 7KB of writing and presentation.

HTML was never meant to be specific in terms of absolute presentation. It's why there's not specification for <h1> besides "Heading, should be big."

If your visuals are so important host a PDF of the essay which is more beautified.

File: websize.png (20KB, 783x530px)

20KB, 783x530px

>>57924005
none, that is every file included.

>>57924028
ok, but a PDF with embedded font would probably be just as large in most cases, and I want hyperlinking.

also here i made a graph of average web page size.

>>57924205
>size in MB

whoops

kb

File: websize.png (19KB, 783x530px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 783x530px

>>57924233

>>57924205
PDF supports links

And the size of a file is less of an issue than the size of the page since someone has to choose to download that 100kb or so PDF. The reader went to that page in order to read what you posted not to download a webfont.

>>57921233
just download the app, you get the whole frontend at once :^)

>>57923945
Normies ruined the Internet, computing, everything.

>>57924233
Don't worry. It will be accurate in another 5 years.

This is what happens when you think dynamic linking over HTTP is a good idea for your shitty language that does everything client side for every fucking request.

Javascript is cancer.

>>57923930

"web fonts"

Fucking cancer.

>>57921233
Modern browsers cache 99% of what youre fretting over and the top few libraries are used by almost every page

>>57924670

Not everyone wants shitty javascript everywhere.

Javascript is RCE with an ad campaign.

>>57924670
>stop bashing our shit code
>your browser will cache everything so you won't notice it we swear!

t. Rajeesh

>>57921233
It's not the size as much as having 75 scripts from 37 different serves that's the problem.

>>57923705
I think you lost your way, let me help you. >>>/plebbit/

>>57923274
>>57923485
You're shit.

A fucking RAW 640x960 32bit picture is 2.4MB

how do we fix this issue? how do we fix this issue if we're forced to javascript? what places have smooth running javascript?

>>57921640
definitely this

>>57924848
Don't blame Sanjay for this. Web devs are, sadly, westerners.