4 ms·
In reality JavaScript size means very little when a single image might be 500k.
by Touche 11y ago
In reality JavaScript size means very little when a single image might be 500k.
- Svenskunganka 11y agoUnfortunately I have to disagree. The JavaScript Engine still have to parse and interpret the code. This can take a bit of time, especially on mobile devices.
- openasocket 11y agoParse time shouldn't be very long at all, especially compared to network latency. How long does it take for large (~100-150kb minified) to be parsed and interpreted? I'd be surprised if it's more than 100ms
- Walkman 11y ago100ms is noticeable. It's already slow if you reach that.
- WalterSear 11y agoIt's barely above the threshold for detectable live feedback latency, from a musical instrument or sight/sound correlation. As a user veiwing a page with plenty of other latency, it's inconsequential, particularly since you can execute your js while image assets are still incoming.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tomc1985 11y agoDid you not see that headline about how the average page now is the size of a Doom install?
- TheCoelacanth 11y agoMainly because an average page has much higher resolution graphics than Doom.
- tomc1985 11y agoSix years ago I was regularly mining merchant pages containing 1mb+ of HTML. Nowadays that seems to be par for course.
- coldtea 11y agoMaybe, but in terms of understanding the code and having total control over it, it means a lot. (And I don't buy the large teams can't adopt a self-grown code in the first place. If they're any good, they can. If they're not, then even their React and Angular skills will be bad). Besides you know all your business logic code? That will be custom too, anyway,and they'll have to adopt it...
- takno 11y agoMy total image payload is 30k. Obviously getting there is more challenging for other sites, but at the end of the day if your page is >1mb I'm probably not going to wait for it to load
- coldtea 11y ago>but at the end of the day if your page is >1mb I'm probably not going to wait for it to load Average size for the most popular sites has actually grown to ~ 2.5-3MB. And since they're the most popular, it shows that people DO wait just fine for them to load.
- elmigranto 11y agoSwitch "most popular" to "your site" and it will probably change user's desire to wait for it.
- coldtea 11y agoYeah, that's true. Also what I left out in my argument is that while popular already, they still might get increased in traffic if they were lighter.
- elmigranto 10y agoWhat's more relevant at Facebook's scale is dollars saved per kilobyte shrinked. Because majority of its users will tolerate almost anything at this point, including apps that crash randomly to measure loyalty.
- netghost 11y agoIt's not so much the time over the wire to download, but the time to parse and run all that JS. If you open up your web dev tools, I think you'll see the impact from a 50k gzipped JS file is probably greater than a 500k image, for one thing the site can probably function without the image loaded, but your page will not be user responsive until that JS has finished executing.
- danieltillett 11y agoYou shouldn't be serving 500k images to mobile users.
- rimantas 11y agoThen you are doing images wrong.