5 ms·
>Depending on your hardware, the entire page should load and render in under 3 seconds. And this is an achievement?
by aisofteng 9y ago
>Depending on your hardware, the entire page should load and render in under 3 seconds.
And this is an achievement?
- Safety1stClyde 9y agoThere must be some kind of law, like Guido's law or something, that the more hardware improves, the slower and worse software becomes, so that due to poor software, one ends up with exactly the same speed as one had in the 1980s.
- rezaprima 9y agoI think it's "Andy [Grove] gives, Bill [Gates] takes away"
- hackuser 9y agoAFAIK, something similar applies to road infrastructure, at least sometimes: There are rush hour traffic jams on the highway so the government adds lanes. As a result, more people move homes and offices to locations near the highway and the traffic delays remain the same. Perhaps it tells us something about what users really want: More (functionality on websites / homes in the suburbs) as long as it doesn't increase latency beyond (3 seconds / 45 minutes).
- someguydave 9y agoOne reason: the hardware has "improved" in ways that are not directly helpful for software. Executing CPU instructions more quickly doesn't help if you can't improve memory speed. Having more cores doesn't help if you can't utilize them efficiently in your problem. But I agree with the meat of your point: modern software sucks and is getting worse.
- ploxiln 9y agoHe should probably be more specific about what devices and conditions he's tested with. It loads for me in a fraction of a second in any web browser on a 2013 Macbook Pro Retina. So it's not that bad.
- Twirrim 9y agoIt loads in way under that time on a OnePlus 3 over LTE, and most of the time is spent connecting, from what I can see.
- mcbits 9y agoThat's probably referring to the time it takes to download 16KB on a 56Kb connection (about 2 seconds plus latency).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]