3 ms·
I realize that this could be considered lightweight by today's web standards, but to me this is still huge.
by gog 9y ago
I realize that this could be considered lightweight by today's web standards, but to me this is still huge.
- r1ch 9y agoI hope that 300KB refers to the backend code size, since one of the selling points is organizations run their own version. There's no way you need 300 KB of frontend code to render HTML from a database.
- jandrese 9y agoImport a JS Framework or two and you'll easily blow that 300kB.
- jandrese 9y agoWoe be to the person still on dialup modem. 300kb on a 56k modem is around a full minute download if memory serves. Of course said modem user is probably already drowning in javascript frameworks anyway.
- jimnotgym 9y agoMy point is that compared with Facebook SDK this project is tiny
- gog 9y agoI understand your point, I just hijacked your comment to voice my frustration about current trends. I tried checking the actual size of the JS being loaded, but since the site for an article I opened made over 500 requests to load the page after I turned off add blockers I gave up. In their case, 300kB _is_ tiny.
- KajMagnus 9y agoHere's one that is of size half-tiny then :- ) another open source embedded commenting system, with different features & look, & 150 kb JS: https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments. I'm developing this. Still, even just 150 kb is actually a bit slow, on slow 3G connections.