4 ms·

How fast could google.com be if they trimmed the JS fat?

• niutech 9y ago
  The non-JS version takes 1/3 loading time of the JS version: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/180402_0J_6a3f29516e9a8bcf06484a975136d3b7/ http://www.webpagetest.org/result/180402_0J_6a3f29516e9a8bcf... vs http://www.webpagetest.org/result/180402_Z3_1bd3e53e1be2668cb583ba24bdd54c3a/ http://www.webpagetest.org/result/180402_Z3_1bd3e53e1be2668c...
  • yorby 9y ago
    Thanks. And I have a feeling that it would be much worst (aka better) for a mail.google.com inbox page, even if you keep the useful Javascript. But their javascript is so obfuscated that it is not too easy to test. One time I extracted a simple feature for gmail's javascript... it was fun (probably would be easier for a programmer though)
    • throwaway2048 9y ago
      gmail has a basic html mode that is lightning fast.