4 ms·
I still don't fully understand AMP. Why is it any different/better than a normal CDN? It seems like Google could do the same kind of caching with existing CDNs.
by iainmerrick 10y ago
I still don't fully understand AMP. Why is it any different/better than a normal CDN? It seems like Google could do the same kind of caching with existing CDNs.
Is it just that you're not allowed to use third-party plugins for ads and tracking, and instead have to use a single standard Google plugin?
- callahad 10y agoMy understanding is that AMP wants to make it impossible to write poorly-performing websites. For example, all externally fetched resources, like images, must have explicit dimensions specified in markup. This makes it possible to statically lay out the page, without blocking on any dependencies aside from the AMP library and the page markup itself. Third-party JavaScript is forbidden, etc. Similarly, page analytics are all collected once, by a single AMP library, and then distribuetd to as many endpoints as you want, instead of each analytics endpoint having to duplicate the work of collection. There are trade-offs. AMP is restrictive (no third-party JavaScript, limits on CSS, etc.), the AMP library itself is 200 KB (60 KB gzipped), and AMP is ultimately controlled entirely by Google, though the core team is interested in recruiting external maintainers.
- iainmerrick 10y agoWhy not just convert your page to use the AMP style, but still use your own CDN to deliver it? That way you get most of the benefits but retain control.