Have websites gotten slower? or are web designers shit now?

Most websites are full of code for tracking users and displaying ads, which takes forever to process.

>>59595104
Javascript

>>59595104
1. It's your computer/bandwith
2. It's websites with JavaScript that prevent the site from fully rendering before it's done with it's tasks (like fetching ads or posting analytics)

>>59595104
youre full of nostalgia.
internet was fucking slow compared to today. todays internet is fucking fast and if a webpage doesnt load instantly, people start crying about it on /g/ and whish they were living again in the dial-up past. hore shit.

>>59595165
No, he's right. Mid/late 2000's was the high mark. Web has been steadily getting slower since then.

>pajeet
>fuckton of ad content
>ad trackers
>meme js library of the week on top of meme js library of last week on top of....

>>59595384
Main reason for that - WebFrameworks, second reason - AJax.
It's faster to download all content at once.

>>59595104
Botnet and ads and tracking scripts etc require both bandwidth and computational resources.

People refuse to substitute JavaScript for assembly, that's the problem.

the latency never improved

>>59595104
>Have websites gotten slower? or are web designers shit now?
yes

>>59595893
Not only that but for a lot of people it's gotten so bad that any apparent improvements in technology are not felt, despite the improvement to infrastructure.

File: 1456509600004.jpg (67KB, 500x569px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x569px

>>59595144
>>59595158
>>59595710
So do 90% of sites use javascript then? I mean java has been around for a long time. Has it always been used in web development? or is that the portion that's gotten worse with age?

>>59595687
google analytics and their ilk have become numerous over the years and plugged into everything. Does google analytics even have a competitor? or is every website ever essentially integrated with google now? I ask about this all the time but never find more information since everyone seems to love google and thinks they're the future rather than jews profiting from our web history. I'm curious if there are any organized groups that oppose google or have an umbrella for websites that don't want to be part of the google network.

>>59595973
It's everywhere. Even here.

>>59595973
theres tons of competators/alternatives/framework with build in analytics... or you roll your own.

yahoo small business (aabaco) tags their own analytics onto your site (I use both this and google analytics) and it captures almost all the same information.

The main weakness of GA is the sheer volume of russians trying to fuck with your shit it takes an hour to filter out their horseshit for every page

>>59595428
Properly used AJAX is great. It means you don't have to re-download an entire page at once, and the experience is closer to a desktop app.

Note the key word "properly".

>>59595428
Can you site an example of a production website that is too slow for your ultra-boutique tastes?

>>59595104
back then we had websites.

Now we have Javascript webapps, delivered using HTTP/HTTPS and ran by our browsers.

>>59596034
What is Ajax? a framework for webpages? I'd love to just download whole pages before viewing them if that's an option.

>>59596144
How can you be emotional about something you have no fundamental grasp of?

File: 98aebb1ee783262acb17f16287556769.gif (435KB, 500x256px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 500x256px

>>59596000
I'm not surprised. This has been a shithole for years. I don't come here often, but /g/ gives me a little bit of hope since some of you are actually educated. Other boards are a lost cause. I kind of want 4chan to implode and get replaced just to see what crops up instead.

>>59596029
The internet and advertising used to be like the wild west. I never paid much attention to laws and international meddling years ago. Are companies still on the same footing in terms of the money they can make without google? or is their infrastructure so huge that it's like shooting yourself in the foot.

I find it so weird that there's so few competitors or new services actively coming out to replace existing ones. Like Facebook, Twitter, Twitch TV, youtube, etc are all hugely popular and widely used, but I never even see alternatives anymore. Years ago there was opposition coming out every month.

>waiting for doubclick.net
yeah its always been shit when sites use external content, just that more do it now.

>>59596193
Because I can picture an ideal situation in my mind that achieving would make happy.

>>59595104
web fuckers are shit tier when it comes of making something functional and clean and not relying on a framework or some shit that will take forever loadin javascript crap that mostly shows one or two lame effects and keeps track of you

For me this is not true.

And I know why. Because internet speed in my country has grown faster than the webpages loaded content.

So, for me, websites are loading much faster now, when they have more content, than back in the early 00s, when they were mostly made of text and small images.

It really is your internet connection. Assuming that you're not using a PC older than 5 years.

>>59596411
>more content

Content or "content"?

> when they were mostly made of text and small images

I'd call that content, and more worthy content than the trash that infests the web now.

>>59596459
I actually like the state of the internet right now and it's getting better.

I used to have that negative attitude too, when I had an old piece of crap computer (Core solo, 512MB ram, hdd).

Now I have an i5, 16GB ram, an SSD and a connection of 300Mbps (dl) / 150Mbps (ul), and everything runs smooth and fast. And that negative, hateful attitude is gone.

>>59595104
The demands and expectations of websites have changed drastically since the web's inception, so of course they've gotten "slower" as they grew heavier. The age of purely static, shittily designed web pages is over, and it was trash anyway, only looked fondly upon by millennials nostalgic for a time they never endured, who throw a tantrum if a page takes longer than two seconds to load.

But web developers have also grown shittier over the years relying too much on shitty one-size-fits-all frameworks, external content and automation to produce shitty, though conveniently generated web pages.

>>59595973
javascript != java

File: this-poop-painting-of-mark-zuckerberg-is-the-digital-eras-piss-christ-body-image-1422034907.jpg (69KB, 748x950px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 748x950px

>>59595104
>search web how to do a for/next loop in language x
>search engine first 2k hits returns youtube 1h30m shiling pajeets tutorials
>mfw

>10 megs of le ebin awesome.js xD
>1 meg of.css

>>59595138
>>59595158
This. Sites that don't have a hojillion lines of JavaScript and analytics and dozens of database calls tend to load at lightspeed nowadays. You could host a simple static site on an RPi3 and handle the entire world knocking on your door at once, and there are some great static site generators nowadays.

>>59596838
I find it strange that later millenials would feel nostalgia for a time they never experienced or lived through. but maybe its the usual trend of following eceleb musings.

I enjoyed simplicity. An article was just text with a couple of images relevant to the subject matter. while ads were opened mostly in seperate webpages and easily dismissed. Now you get articles framed by ads and anti adblocker notifications, only to get halfway into the article to find out its an ad itself endorsing specific products or software.

Are there any examples of current era webpages that are hyper efficiently programmed?

>>59597131
Could I get some more information? When you say lack of database calls what do you mean? I don't know much about web development.

Also in terms having lots of site traffic, running out of bandwidth always seemed like the biggest problem. Has the price of bandwidth skyrocketed in recent years? or gotten cheaper?

and when I say that, I mean also taking into account how much data usage itself has increased.

All I'm saying is toastytech loads orders of magnitude faster than the vast majority of other websites

File: Screen shot 2017-03-26 at 10.41.47 PM.png (12KB, 560x73px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 560x73px

>>59596838
>>59597737
I'm a Millennial and I remember using dial up, Windows 9x, and browsing shit like Yahooligans.

I'm seriously wondering how old you fucks are.

File: mem.png (3KB, 384x88px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 384x88px

>>59597989
toastytech on the right, my homegrown website on the left.

Apart from bootstrap and jquery all of the content on my website its static, all the data its loaded through Ajax after the site its loaded by requesting a php page with the functions of the page, i find this way of development quite efficient because the main piece of the site loads just as fast as toastytech and its only loaded once, the rest of the time php and javascript does their magic to interact with the user.

The problem with modern websites its that all of the content its dynamic then they throw Ajax on top to load the php servers even more.

>>59597737
>Are there any examples of current era webpages that are hyper efficiently programmed?

There needs to be an old timey web ring for sites like these. An oasis.

>>59597077
>>59597131
Not only that the libs are all stored on a million different servers at google and facebook and then you have the 50 ad requests per page. Webshitters are so awful that the speed of light is literally a meaningful factor in their page loads.

>>59598083
They changed the definition of Millenial to include people in the early 2000s as well I think. I was born in 89, but I just happened to spend a lot of time on an old windows 3.1 computer from around age 5-6 onward. We got dial up fairly early.

>>59598142
That's what I'm saying too. I've just been trying to make lists of old sites that aren't part of the regular popular google curriculum. I feel like this stuff must exist somewhere and I'm just uninformed.

>>59597131
>there are some great static site generators nowadays
please name them.

>>59598543
> http://werc.cat-v.org/

>>59596234
>Years ago there was opposition coming out every month.
VC money tightened up ever since the SEC informally warned them in 2013 to audit their funds better.

>>59595104
Gone are the days of mom-and-pop websites. Nowadays only money can get you on the front page.

>>59595104
its slow because botnet, ads, ISP jewery, javascript, and shitty pajeet web developers. ad blocker should help

>>59598861

front page of what? if you want to make a mom and pop website, nothing is stopping you. make it, put your content on it, and spread the link around. you might not get rich, but if your stuff is good, some people will look at it

what do you guys think of sites like
http://tilde.club

shared server space run off a low end UNIX machine where hundreds of people are hosting lightweight sites off of, resulting in a little webring subculture. /g/ could have one

>>59595104
It's because of all the ads, tracking and web 2.0 shit.

>>59596838
>The age of purely static, shittily designed web pages is over, and it was trash anyway, only looked fondly upon by millennials nostalgic for a time they never endured
I beg to differ. I was born in 1994 and I'm pretty sure I remember already using websites in the '90s, even though I was so little. We had a Gateway computer in the house already by the time I was born.

>>59595104
Install a Javascript blocker and watch how fast websites load.

The difference is insane when you aren't loading 50 MB of scripts that proceed to download 100MB of ads and tracking bullshit on top of whatever flavor the month framework the avant garde designer decided to use to actually build the site.

Overall I'd say it's about 50% management bullshit telling devs to shit up their otherwise fine website designs with ads and tracking, and 50% incompetent devs jerking themselves off over making the site look "pretty."

File: pcat03-r.jpg (69KB, 740x532px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 740x532px

>>59596838
>>59599218
I was born in 1995 and my first computer was an IBM PC/AT. I learned how to use DOS on this thing.

>>59599218
Playing microsoft solitaire on the desktop is not the same thing as visiting a web-site, kid.

>>59599163
>/g/ could have one
Great idea. What should the logo be?

>>59599374
Dude, I was never into Solitaire. For a good portion of my life my computer use was websites and WordPerfect.

>>59599483
Oh, and American Greetings Create-a-Card Manager.

>>59595104
Webdevs have no idea how to write optimized code.

>>59599483
i was fond of the black and white gateway cow packaging.

>>59595104
poo in loos program things now

>>59599788
They don't know how to write much code period, they use frameworks and use as much plug and go stuff as they can.

>>59599838
to be fair "Full stack" webdev becomes a tangly mess very quickly for even simple applications.

the frameworks are so people can churn shit out as fast as possible.

This thread has been pretty educational so far.

How do I learn to be a webdev that can optimize?

>Install noscript
>visit my usual news site
>37 scripts blocked
>page loads lightning fast

wow

>>59599891
You don't, you just be a basic bitch average shit drone like all the others.

>>59596718
>300Mbps (dl) / 150Mbps (ul)
heh, not even my VPS in my country has that kind of internet speed

>>59599897
>visit website on desktop
>works well, loads fast
>visit website on phone
>takes ages to load, full of ads and popups
I hate it.

>>59596034
first ajax, then asynchronous json, then the current abortion of react/vue/how-it's-called.js
>>59596144
you got a spare petabyte?

I don't hate flashy sites and other high-bandwidth content. Even back in the days of ANSI art there were people showing off.

What I dislike is how those same conventions are applied to sites where they have no place. News sites, e-mail, forums, etc. Things where the actual function of the site hasn't changed since they first went online should not fall prey to this.

To me it just seems so insular. Having entire regions of the web totally unusable due to a lack of system resources or infrastructure just seems so counter to the ideals of the World-Wide Web. I guess I'm too much of an idealist for my own good.

https://danluu.com/web-bloat/

>>59595138
>>59597131
>>59598489

Also a lot of people have fucky DNS resolution for many reasons (incompetence, ISPs, malware, shit OS, etc), when the webpage has to resolve 50 different domains it doesn't matter how "fast" your connection or computer is if the ISP is trying to inject advertising into your advertising so you can be spied on while you get spied on

>>59601038
Firefox has its own DNS prefetching thing by default, too. Goes and resolves links and shit in the background. Alllll kinds of 3rd party slowdown on so many layers.

In the beggining the browser was just a text formated document render, knowadeys is something like a virtual machine were you can run entire applications in javascript

>>59599926
>full of ads and pop-ups
>current_year
>not using Adguar
I hated you

>>59601065
And it's no wonder it does the job so poorly when its having to do so much complex stuff.

I can't think of anything I can do on the web today that I couldn't do with a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64, so yes.

>>59596838
>shittily designed web pages is over
The internet wasn't your geocities site anon. Making your site more difficult to navigate by hiding your sites contents under layers upon layers of menus is not good design.

Below are two modern sites; one site has an older aesthetic design, and the other one has a more modern one. The first site is faster, and lays out all options clearly. The other is bogged down with bloat. You can use modern standards to build a good site, but modern design aesthetics are inherently trash as they make your site worse.

https://www.yahoo.co.jp/
https://www.yahoo.com/

MUCH slower

>>59595165
You want a fucking fight mate?
https://forum.dlang.org/
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/
http://cat-v.org/
This is how fast sites were before shit was stuffed full of tracking crap.

>>59601519
Am I the only one who finds something strangely appealing about the design aesthetics of Japanese web pages?

>>59601519
Mind you both of these sites have way too much dynamic content. This is just an example on what simply not using shitty meme aesthetics can do.

>>59601583
Not shocking. Their aesthetics are very similar to our early-mid 00's aesthetics, just with more features.

File: 1490597233722.gif (603KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 320x240px

>>59598083
yea dude im 21 and i very distinctly remember being at my cousins house, and he had dial up. It took like fifteen fucking minutes to load up gamespot.com homepGe so we could get Grand theft auto cheatz

>>59595104
This should answer your question, this site highlights what webshits think are good websites. Prepare for next level bloat.

https://www.awwwards.com/awards-of-the-day/

> https://vimeo.com/147806338

>>59601088
>Adguard
>not a hosts-file adblocker

>>59601061
fuck, and I wondered why does my dns hiccups on firefox from time to time
one evening i was surprised by how much faster internet explorer was than firefox (even without addons)
]i should probably disable that shit

>>59601556
>http://cat-v.org/
well 4chan is not that far off

>>59601756
also be sure to kill their constant disk writing bullshit which murders SSDs.

>>59601785
What thing?

>>59601804
sessionstore something. by default it like dumps your session every 10-15 seconds straight to disk.

>>59601828
How much of the disk does it use?

>>59601835
dunno, but writing TO disk is incredibly slow and hurts performance in the browser generally.

>>59601782
4chan is heavily bloated for a site that has had near enough the same function for well over a decade.

File: load.png (53KB, 667x900px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 667x900px

>>59601519
Wikipedia has the same aesthetics and type of content that yahoo.jp, but it takes 3 times more to load and it weights more than 4 times, no wonder they ask for donations all the time, their site its shit.

The web has always been shit, for different reasons.

I saw the whole thing happen, I was born in '74 and had a ring side view.

It should never have been commercialized.

>stallman was right about everything.

Google fonts is unironically the biggest reason why my website slows down.

>>59601862
So surveillance and dangerous malware vector AND performance decrease! Huzzah.

File: 1310496497472.jpg (15KB, 203x152px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 203x152px

>>59601855
>yahoo japan
>200kb
>yahoo america
>2.6mb

File: a.png (181KB, 1106x543px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1106x543px

>>59601973
japan's still cool with early/mid-2000's style websites, so they're nice a lean

>>59601973
>>59601988

Metabo law.

>>59601973
just like their people

>>59601855
>They don't know how to write much code period, they use frameworks and use as much plug and go stuff as they can.
Are you fucking stupid? Your own screenshot reveals the reason: you had most stuff from yahoo already cached while you loaded a lot of images from wikipedia. In fact, you loaded nearly 5 times more data from wikipedia. Wikipedia made only 1/3 of the requests yahoo made. All can be seen in your fucking screenshot you uneducated imbecile.

>>59595104
Modern net is 3.0 bloat

But anytime /g/ discusses 90s internet the contrarians start "le dumb nostalgiafag" spamming.

File: Dinosaur.png (181KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 300x400px

>>59601088
>ad-blocking browser
I want an ad-blocker IN a fucking browser, not a ad-blocking browser.

>>59603006
That browsers don't come with script and ad blocking capabilities built in is such bullshit with how infested with both the web now is.

>>59601556
>>https://forum.dlang.org/
That's a really nice forum system.

It's what happens when you let Pajeet write all your code.

>>59604351
In the case of the web the issue isn't Pajeets but hipsters from code bootcamps.

>>59601632
>Go to this site
>Open first website on the list
>temporarily freezes my browser

fucking hell

Because they do it for money some of the rarely personal websites is done well

>>59605006
Like this one http://tholman.com/

I wish all websites were as quick to load and snappy to navigate as 4chan. One of the things I like about coming to 4chan is just watching something load fast.

>>59605053
Or maybe I'm wrong who cares, if you ask a webdev to use a pure js he will have a hard time trying

>>59596047
amazon.com

>>59605077
this

>>59595138
This. Install an ad blocker and your websites will magically all load 1000% faster.

http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

>>59596234
It's already being replaced

post good web design

>>59607813
>>59605806

>>59595138
That isn't true at all. Advertisements and related scripts are loaded in below the fold, you tech illiterate moron. Stay off /g/ and get back to keddit.

>>59595973
Use noscript in firefox and see for yourself how many websites lose a shitton of functionality because of no javascript. Rarely there are some sites that work absolutely fine with noscript.

File: Canada.jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>>59605806
>created by (some fucker) with help from (some other fucker)
>site is literally text and some tags
>still needed help

>>59595973
> So do 90% of sites use javascript then? I mean java has been around for a long time.

Java and Javascript are different things. JS co-opted the name because Java was big at the time and expected to propel the internet to the next level, which never happened (probably because the barrier to JS is so low).

>>59608270
>still better than any shit you could ever make
>still superior design

I have fiber, I don't care.

File: nigga wat.png (162KB, 594x393px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 594x393px

>>59608301
>contains a script
discarded

>>59608270
>>59608301
i am sorry i need to correct myself, just clicked that (some other fucker) link
>fucking hipster trash

>>59602041
Kek

>>59595104

There are a bunch of reasons for this.

As others have mentioned, network bottlenecking and Javascript-driven advertising and tracking are the main culprits. There are other little things like using lots of images, linking lots of scripts/stylesheets and other files instead of concatenating and minifying - individually they don't necessarily have a big impact but they add up.

Another big issue is that web developers are under a lot of pressure from clients to build a modern site in a timely fashion, so developers tend to avoid "re-inventing the wheel" and instead use lots of 3rd party libraries, CSS frameworks and the like where possible. This tends to create a lot of overhead because these libraries do much more than the bare minimum each site requires.

It really sucks. I say this as someone who's in this situation daily. With the kind of timescales my team works to, we can't afford to build a nice efficient site from scratch every time. Developer time is expensive, so we trade efficiency for speed.

That being said, our sites usually have Google analytics and that's about it, so the loading times are acceptable.

>>59608492
>Google analytics
spotted the goy right here

>>59608549

Client pays for GA, client gets GA. My personal politics can't really be a factor I'm afraid.

>>59595104
Don't really know what you are talking about because I don't have any problems loading sites.

>>59595104
Nowadays if you want to read an article you need to load more shitty JS than the actual article's text. It's completely ridiculous, so yes, modern web design is shit by retards who build everything on the idea that "machines are fast enough" and you've got enough resources to handle a sloppy mess of JS libraries and frameworks when the goal is to display a menu and an article consisting of some text and a few images. JS is great when applied where needed but nowadays certain websites are completely retarded with it.

File: 29-6.jpg (108KB, 990x660px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 990x660px

What DNS servers do you use lads?

>>59601859
is there any way to kick businesses out of the internet at this point? or is it on a path to kill itself at the very least?

>>59601309

have more than two tabs open simultaneously

>>59608791

why are you not using noscript? the web is unbearable without it.

>>59610324
I am, of course. That doesn't meant it's not retarded to need shitloads of JS to display some text and pictures and I've ran across sites which actually don't display anything at all (completely blank page) if you don't have JS enabled/allowed.

>>59610204
No. This is exactly why TJ walked away from FidoNet and let it burn. He knew that once business gets involved it played to win.

>>59598583
Any others?

Time to go back to UseNet and dialing BBSes?

>>59604842
But don't you like loading screens and dynamic content?

>>59610268
Did that just fine on my Pentium 4 PC back in 2007.

File: 1470470758071.jpg (71KB, 696x696px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 696x696px

>>59610400
I remember hearing about efforts to create another internet in the event this happened. Though I think one of the solutions at the time was to create a network via a bunch of wireless signals. Cellphones, routers etc. Given what we know now, something like that probably wouldnt have any hope of being secure though.

Do you know of any other efforts or thoughts being tossed around? The internet was at its best when it wasn't overly profitable. As in information share and honest communication between people. I know creating a seperate entity isn't exactly going to draw everyone in, but having a 'no bullshit' version to opt in to would at least attract some of the right people.

>>59604424
yes. slow payment systems, and shitty internal sites your company uses are pajeets.

hipstersite.io with powerpoint style navigation is a braindead boot campers.

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/club7000

Try clicking on any of the profiles here, then click on their "Games" tab. Then see how long you can go before your browser crashes.

This is acceptable web design in the current year.

>>59608198

Just look in the lower left when you visit almost any mainstream website and it queries like 20 different domains before the site pops up

Javascript is like porn. It expands to fill available bandwidth.

>>59610463
Hugo

>>59610389
You save time if you load up a site and end up with a red noscript flag, easily tells you the site is on par with shitty javascript malware sites.
I seriously hope you faggots aren't still using flash and turned off media.autoplay in about:config.