4 ms·
AMP has a whole suite of technical limitations that are unrelated to the problem being solved. For example they limit pages to 50k (pre-gzip) of unlined CSS rat
by underwater 9y ago
AMP has a whole suite of technical limitations that are unrelated to the problem being solved. For example they limit pages to 50k (pre-gzip) of unlined CSS rather than allowing stylesheets to be linked. This is not how sites are generally built, and at least for me, meant rebuilding large parts of my build process.
Google engineers seem to have a hard time differentiating between a platform and a framework. PWAs and suffer from the exact same problem. They’re great if you build a greenfield product to their exact specs, but difficult to use otherwise.
- fooker 9y ago>'how sites are built' I take a look at the average mobile web page and thank Google that AMP brings sone restrictions.
- underwater 9y agoThen why pretend that it’s still just a web page? Google might as well drop the charade and push an proprietary binary format.
- Spivak 9y agoBecause becoming essentially Chrome only is the antithesis of their core business model of getting as many eyeballs as possible. Not particularly good for the web either. From a technical standpoint it wouldn't surprise me if people start proposing binary formats that beat text/plain + gzip in size and speed.
- realusername 9y ago> Google might as well drop the charade and push an proprietary binary format. That's exactly what they are doing with Instant Apps, they just try different strategies to control the web more at the same time.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> AMP has a whole suite of technical limitations that are unrelated to the problem being solved. For example they limit pages to 50k (pre-gzip) of unlined CSS rather than allowing stylesheets to be linked. How is limiting size and server round-trips of CSS not related to the problem being solved by AMP?