5 ms·
> Yes, AMP pages load fast, but you don’t need AMP for fast-loading web pages. If you are a publisher and your web pages don’t load fast, the sane solution is t
by martin_drapeau 9y ago
> Yes, AMP pages load fast, but you don’t need AMP for fast-loading web pages. If you are a publisher and your web pages don’t load fast, the sane solution is to fix your [fricking] website so that pages load fast, not to throw your hands up in the air and implement AMP.
I'm a developer and took some time to analyze AMP from a developer's perspective. The above conclusion is the only sane one. AMP, Web Packing Standard, damn proxy - they are all workarounds that complicate things. Don't be lazy - fix your shit and make your website fast.
https://medium.com/@martindrapeau/amp-for-developers-the-technical-and-seo-perspectives-b1becd64e66d https://medium.com/@martindrapeau/amp-for-developers-the-tec...
- digi_owl 9y agoI fear the inherent problem is that a "lazy" dev team ships/publishes earlier...
- dfabulich 9y ago(Author here.) You and I agree that AMP has serious problems, but your article doesn't evaluate the Web Packaging standard at all, which is the whole point of the article. Prerendering is faster than the fastest web site you can build, faster than http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/, as fast as switching tabs. On noisy cellular networks, where even one network request can take seconds, even the fastest sites can be slow; prerendering can fix this. I don't think it makes sense to say, "Prerendering makes even the fastest sites faster?! Bah, humbug! Web sites are fast enough if you do them right." Web sites are pretty fast if you do them right. But making them even faster is hardly lazy.