3 ms·
This is disingenuous - he's obviously referring to image and text articles, not complicated web apps. Obviously such a website is going to take longer to load,
by supergauntlet 10y ago
This is disingenuous - he's obviously referring to image and text articles, not complicated web apps. Obviously such a website is going to take longer to load, just as complex native applications take a while to load. But to claim that because Word takes a while that it's okay that A WEBSITE WITH LITERALLY JUST TEXT AND IMAGES is 18 megs big and takes 6000 ms to load is fucking stupid.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoAlso, Word takes a while to load, but then works fast and is responsive - as well-written native apps are by default - and doesn't suck up your system resources. Something which can't be said about many websites "with literally just text and images".
- Skinney 10y agoYou're comparing a well-written native app with a poorly written website. I'm currently working on a web-app that requires an about 600kb (minified, yes I know) app.js file. It takes a while to load (not really, 100ms + download), but after that it is silky smooth due to client side rendering (faster than downloading more html) and caching. On the most demanding page, heap usage is a little more than 20mb. Sure, there are a lot of websites which are slow and huge memory hogs. But that goes for many native apps as well.
- dclowd9901 10y agoCome on, you know that's the exception and not the rule. No one should use a revenue generating site as a basis for how the web works. Unless they want to compare it to a similar native product.