6 ms·

I mean this is nice but it's really not a lesson for web developers. The fact that this is 2.8mb doesn't really teach a web developer any lessons, unless you th

I mean this is nice but it's really not a lesson for web developers. The fact that this is 2.8mb doesn't really teach a web developer any lessons, unless you think that large website payloads exist because developers are literally too lazy or don't know how asset optimization works. Instead, having worked in web development, I know that website payload size is often driven by having to include vendored javascript for business reasons (analytics and social are big culprits) or because your boss doesn't give you the time to focus on performance because for the business, it is good enough and they want to use their limited web development resources to do something other than shrinking javascript payloads. Another thing, you're impressed by the graphics and how the developer was able to include them while keeping the payload small. It seems to be made using vectors and particle effects. Both of these techniques are not heavy in terms of payload. Shaders and particle effects are generally very small amounts of code. Think about how this is different for a website that heavily relies on all sorts of user-generated content: jpgs, mp4, gif, png, etc. Much larger assets than a few shaders and svg.

fkld 9y ago
Oh please STFU
- sctb 9y ago
  Commenting like this will get your account banned, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rev_bird 9y ago
>unless you think that large website payloads exist because developers are literally too lazy or don't know how asset optimization works. For what it's worth, I do think this. It's easy to just drag another JS library into your code without thinking of how long it's going to take to load.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  I don't know what to tell you if you're convinced that's the problem. I know and work with many web developers who do care about performance. I follow the blogs of many web developers who write about performance. I don't doubt that there are junior web developers who don't know much better. But I don't really meet anyone who says that they just don't care about performance.
  - debaserab2 9y ago
    Caring about performance means weighing the decision carefully when choosing vendor libraries that fill up your payload. You can consciously care about performance but still be negligent to the things that affect it. I see competent devs reach for libraries all the time when a simple solution already exists within the language. It's easy to feel like you're doing the right thing by not reinventing the wheel. Areas I see this happening a lot in are anything dealing with file systems, HTTP request/responses, database connections, DOM/string manipulation/parsing/validation. The common theme among all these things is usually a lack of understanding of what the library/package does well enough to implement the specific use case needed.
  - BurningFrog 9y ago
    Let me just point out that you can care deeply about performance and still lack the skills to achieve it.
    - chickenfries 9y ago
      Yes, I agreed with you in my post. > I don't doubt that there are junior web developers who don't know much better. I just think it's very... puritanical the way that people bemoan the state of websites as a personal failing of web developers as a profession rather than the a result of what kind of deliverables their employers care about and are willing to pay for.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        Whenever I see the term "web developers" in this context, I'm assuming it means all of the decisions they make given the requirements and inputs from others in the business. I think the web is currently terrible and I think modern web-development is to blame, but that includes the people behind the web-devs making the decisions that are being pushed onto the web-devs. There are a lot of things to blame for the current state of the web, but ultimately the current practice of web-development (and whatever behind-the-scenes processes that involves) is clearly the biggest reason why.
manigandham 9y ago
This is true for the sites, however then it's the vendors who are then lazy and put out bloated packages, which is much worse since they have an outsized impact on all the sites they're included on.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  Yes. Not only that, it's the cumulative effect of having to include tags from so many vendors.

fkld 9y ago

Oh please STFU

sctb 9y ago
Commenting like this will get your account banned, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rev_bird 9y ago

>unless you think that large website payloads exist because developers are literally too lazy or don't know how asset optimization works. For what it's worth, I do think this. It's easy to just drag another JS library into your code without thinking of how long it's going to take to load.

chickenfries 9y ago
I don't know what to tell you if you're convinced that's the problem. I know and work with many web developers who do care about performance. I follow the blogs of many web developers who write about performance. I don't doubt that there are junior web developers who don't know much better. But I don't really meet anyone who says that they just don't care about performance.
- debaserab2 9y ago
  Caring about performance means weighing the decision carefully when choosing vendor libraries that fill up your payload. You can consciously care about performance but still be negligent to the things that affect it. I see competent devs reach for libraries all the time when a simple solution already exists within the language. It's easy to feel like you're doing the right thing by not reinventing the wheel. Areas I see this happening a lot in are anything dealing with file systems, HTTP request/responses, database connections, DOM/string manipulation/parsing/validation. The common theme among all these things is usually a lack of understanding of what the library/package does well enough to implement the specific use case needed.
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  Let me just point out that you can care deeply about performance and still lack the skills to achieve it.
  - chickenfries 9y ago
    Yes, I agreed with you in my post. > I don't doubt that there are junior web developers who don't know much better. I just think it's very... puritanical the way that people bemoan the state of websites as a personal failing of web developers as a profession rather than the a result of what kind of deliverables their employers care about and are willing to pay for.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      Whenever I see the term "web developers" in this context, I'm assuming it means all of the decisions they make given the requirements and inputs from others in the business. I think the web is currently terrible and I think modern web-development is to blame, but that includes the people behind the web-devs making the decisions that are being pushed onto the web-devs. There are a lot of things to blame for the current state of the web, but ultimately the current practice of web-development (and whatever behind-the-scenes processes that involves) is clearly the biggest reason why.

manigandham 9y ago

This is true for the sites, however then it's the vendors who are then lazy and put out bloated packages, which is much worse since they have an outsized impact on all the sites they're included on.

chickenfries 9y ago
Yes. Not only that, it's the cumulative effect of having to include tags from so many vendors.