So, webpages are basically downloaded computer programs now?

>>58095789
Not now, my dear friend. Always been.

No they're literally botnets

File: 135KB_of_html.png (135KB, 1366x713px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1366x713px

>>58095825
I dispute this.

HTML is designed to be interpreted by the client. Javascript was an addon and usually ended up being relatively small. usually the largest element on the page was the banner image or lead image for news sites.

Literally the largest single item on that page is the css, the thing that was supposed to cut down on page size, now the single most bloated object. There is more javascript code on these pages than in a lot of old video games. What the fuck is going wrong?

I think there was only about 135KB of actual HTML on that page. Pic related.

>>58095789
Wrong, they are just bad devs that dont care. My company website loads under 500ms and I wrote my own backend parser which creates atlas for all images, base64 converts them into html and minifies all js/css then also inlines them. Everything not used is ommited, 1 request to server and u get everything back.

>>58096151
>under 500ms
Have standards fallen this low?

>>58096151
i'm a dumb idiot, but wouldn't that create a lot of cache misses?

>>58096151
>>58096205
To clarify, I left the page running for a while as it was continually loading new elements before I took the screenshot. It looked to be most of the way done after about 20-30s seconds or so, but it genuinely did take that long to load and ran at about 0.2 fps throughout.

I wouldn't mind all this bullshit loading in the background so much if it wasn't bringing every machine I have to a halt every page load.

This is happening with web pages all over now and I don't know why.

>>58096205
Nah I just love assembly and bare metal optimization so I apply it whenever i can

>>58096253
No, I prerender and cache static elements server side and serve them, for dynamic stuff/user data I use vue.js and fetch everything.

In the end its 1 req for static 2 req for dynamic

>>58095789

>using CNN as your news source

>>58096639
>using a news source
why haven't you ascended yet?

File: 1474545477490.jpg (9KB, 271x271px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 271x271px

>>58095789
>CSS
>1.12 MB

>>58095789
If you're mentally retarded enough to use shit websites then yes.

>>58095825
False, web 1.0 was mostly documents.

>>58095789
Have been for the last several years.

How do i tell if my web page i am developing for my aunt's business is bloated? Or anything in general, how do i identify bloat without being unconsciously influenced by my hambeast frame of reference?

Currently i am using:
2 fonts
6 images (one png)
The document
1 stylesheet
(no evil javascript)

And it comes to about 350kb all things accounted for

>>58101982
there is some fat that could be trimmed

>>58101930
If by documents you mmean static html, sure

>>58101982
Custom fonts? Why?

>>58101982
>2 fonts
If you are not using the fonts everywhere (maybe just for a single header or two), making an image might be lighter.

>6 images
Compress losslessly or lossy

>1 stylesheet
>(no evil javascript)
Minify them

>>58102478
>>58102498

It is the brand font pairing and they are used for all content

>>58102344
How

>>58102713
I suppose you are already using WOFF2? If its the will of the client, I suppose there is nothing much to trim on.

>>58102461
Hypertext documents

>>58095789
How do you think cache works?

File: 1454980911166.jpg (39KB, 638x621px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 638x621px

>>58095789
>going to CNN
>actually reading CNN's fake news
oh anon...

>>58096151
>i reinvented everything and now i'm proud of my shitty unmaintainable clusterfuck
good job, rajeesh

>>58096151
>>58096588

>500ms
holy shit dude. Even google says 0.4s is too much. The current standard my company recommends is 0.2 and my own site loads in 0.08s (just basic html, no interpreting done there)

File: 1475147102180.png (312KB, 389x386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 389x386px

>>58096588
>cache? na it's good i cache server side

>>58095846
Technically not a botnet but spyware they sure are. The sentiment still holds though.

>click download link
>it loads a page with 500kb script which starts the download
Truly modern times we live in.

>>58106600
>page with the download button is larger than the thing you're trying to download
i just don't know anymore

>>58096057
the html is now just a string in javascript, so they can make sure only people who wasted time watching their ads can see the content

Obligatory reading:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

File: ob.005.thumb.png (8KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 320x180px

>>58098284
I'm not baiting. That's literally what the browers says the size of the css file is. Admittedly less than that needed to be actually transmitted, but after decompression, that's literally the size of the "program" the page needs to render.

Anyway I found a thing about this.

http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

> If you open that tweet in a browser, you'll see the page is 900 KB big.

> That's almost 100 KB more than the full text of The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov’s funny and enigmatic novel about the Devil visiting Moscow with his retinue (complete with a giant cat!) during the Great Purge of 1937, intercut with an odd vision of the life of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ, and the devoted but unreliable apostle Matthew.

> For a single tweet.

Really activated my almonds desu.

File: DERP_minimalism.png (4KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 320x180px

>>58108220
Some of these are pretty funny actually

> Here’s another example of chickenshit minimialism: the homepage for Google’s contributor program.

> This is a vast blue wasteland, 2 megabytes in size, that requires you to click three times in order to read three sentences.

> The last sentence will tell you that the program is not available here in Australia.

These kind of sites have pissed me off for a while. How the fuck do you even make something with so little content that fucking big?

The Verge Apple Watch review page was a mindfuck altogether.

>>58096057
>>58095789
Relevant:
http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

>>58106600
>>58106609
Don't forget the CDN checking if you are a Bot!

>>58096057
they're just several iterations of web tech ahead of you dont be jealous

>>58108291
can you help me understand the use case for websites that cater to loudmouth dweebs and oversensitive turbo autists?

>>58109886
If you even need to resort to things like "use cases" then you don't understand the internet or websites.

>>58095789

>all that useless bloatshit just to display some text and image files

jesus what has the world come to

yes, that's why terribly bloated shit like youtube can take up to 30 seconds to actually load and start being somewhat responsive if you don't have high-end rig