4 ms·
Chrome's still fast, but other browsers caught up, and more importantly web developers took advantage of the increase in performance and started getting away wi
by avar 10y ago
Chrome's still fast, but other browsers caught up, and more importantly web developers took advantage of the increase in performance and started getting away with writing more bloated websites, resulting in much of the speed gains being nullified.
Just try to use Chrome or Firefox to browse relatively lightweight websites (e.g. GNU.org), they're amazingly fast compared to what browsers used to be like before Chrome came out.
- dclowd9901 10y agoJust try to interview as a front end engineer these days. Someone at Airbnb laughed at me because I used a for loop instead of lodash on an array. He said "wow, you write it old school." Why write fast code when you can write triple transpiled bloats bullshit vis a vis Babel, flow and jsx.
- geuis 10y agoCome check us out at https://massdrop.com https://massdrop.com
- ThePaco 10y agoI'm still sad Massdrop removed the vaping section, got a good deal on a keyboard though!
- dclowd9901 10y agoYou guys aren't hiring in Portland ;)
- kingosticks 10y agoI could honestly believe that is Airbnb's slogan. But I'm sad to believe they treated an interview candidate like that. I hope you were able to use that tool to leverage a better job elsewhere and that he/she is no longer interviewing people at Airbnb.
- gmmeyer 10y agoThe best part of this: The native for loop is what lodash uses. It's the fastest way to do it.
- bhouston 10y agoThe issue is the callback, it introduces significant overhead because it is a new context with its own scope on a per callback basis.
- dclowd9901 10y agoYes, exactly. I suppose if you registered the callback as a named function expression, a good js engine might be able to optimize on it and inline it, but I also don't like leaning on compilers so much.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- digi_owl 10y agoWhy i first started using Noscript.
- msbarnett 10y agoI don't think that's the whole story. Yes, websites are increasingly obese and JS-happy, but Chrome has also gone downhill. Safari feels significantly snappier, and has better RAM usage than Chrome at this point, and it used to be the exact reverse. Chrome is hell on a laptop battery, too.
- t482 10y agofirefox the lightweight alternative to mozilla