4 ms·
I'm irritated by the loading screen and the enormous list of JavaScript pulled in. That's a simple static page using a few css animations. Is adding bloat consi
by embik 11y ago
I'm irritated by the loading screen and the enormous list of JavaScript pulled in. That's a simple static page using a few css animations. Is adding bloat considered "modern webdesign"?
- timlyo 11y agoHow else would we pad our strings?
- egeozcan 11y agoThe example you are giving is actually a result of trying to prevent bloat.
- timlyo 11y agoBy adding a dependency to do a one line task?
- egeozcan 11y agoWell, you can add bloat by inlining it too, if it's repeated many times. I thought bloat was for unused code loaded as a side effect to code that one actually depends on, for example, as a part of a big library. That makes a huge difference if you are targeting the client side. I mean, you could also have it as a helper function in your project but that decreases the re-usability to copy-pasting across projects. In the end, effective or not, I can see it as an attempt on reducing bloat. I see that many don't agree, but I'm afraid they don't take into account the constraints imposed by sending code to the clients rather than a binary.
- egeozcan 11y agoFrom the down-votes, I gather that people may have missed what I was trying to say. The left-pad discussion generally divided people into 3 general opinions: 1) Use a monolithic library like lodash 2) Use a library for each function (note that lodash can also be used in this way but we are already far off-topic) 3) Inline these small functions. So a website loading lots of monolithic libraries and using JS for everything is actually the opposite extreme for what caused that drama. If I'm wrong or irrelevant, please tell me how instead of down-voting please because I sincerely don't see how. Thank you.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 11y ago>I'm irritated by the loading screen and the enormous list of JavaScript pulled in. Why, did you have to count the JavaScript scripts and/or volume? On a web browser JS loading is usually transparent, unless one opens the developer tools. So, either the page was slow for you (a legitimate concern, but the same volume could be matched with 1-2 image assets, not particularly a JS issue), or there's absolutely no reason to care how many JS it loads -- especially given that it's a useful open source project to provide people with packages for Qt.
- 59nadir 11y agoWhy should there be a loading screen for a static site with almost no content on it?
- coldtea 11y agoBecause the volunteer making the website for the free/oss project wanted to have some fun and go wild.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- imtringued 11y agoThe page loads in 200ms for me. This is pretty good but then again. Why the hell do I have to wait 3 seconds for some loading screen?