5 ms·
An article about performance on a 2.2 MB [1] page (~40% of this is JS[2]). With a start render event at about 6.6 seconds on 3G Fast / US [3]. The medium is th
by franze 10y ago
An article about performance on a 2.2 MB [1] page (~40% of this is JS[2]). With a start render event at about 6.6 seconds on 3G Fast / US [3].
The medium is the message.
[1] https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/cBcAKw/https://reaktor.com/blog/javascript-performance-fundamentals-make-bluebird-fast/ https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/cBcAKw/https://reaktor.com/blog...
[2] https://www.webpagetest.org/result/160905_P8_P45/ https://www.webpagetest.org/result/160905_P8_P45/
[3] https://www.webpagetest.org/result/160905_P8_P45/1/details/#waterfall_view_step1 https://www.webpagetest.org/result/160905_P8_P45/1/details/#...
- Klathmon 10y agoWould you feel the same way about a book on performance optimizations? The medium says nothing about the message. The message isn't even about load time performance, it's about runtime optimizations.
- tuxracer 10y ago> The message isn't even about load time performance, it's about runtime optimizations. There tends to be a fetishization of load time and time to paint performance on web, and gross neglect of run time performance and user experience once the web app loads. Some devs seem to forget someone is going to want to actually interact with this thing once it loads and 5fps needlessly jittery, janky UI (among other things) has contributed to the death of mobile web altogether in favor of native apps.
- underwater 10y agoHand optimizing hot code paths is a completely different challenge than minimizing JS overhead for a web page. Your complaint has very little to do with the content of the article. And, even if it did, it wouldn't make the tips in the post any less valid.