4 ms·

This argument comes up frequently though. As computing power increases, the complexity of applications (no matter what machine they're running on) will increase

This argument comes up frequently though. As computing power increases, the complexity of applications (no matter what machine they're running on) will increase. What's the point of having faster hardware if the experience is only the same but faster? People want more capabilities, and JavaScript provides that.

eridius 8y ago
Computing power doesn't unconditionally increase. As our computers get better, we produce ever-smaller computers, trading away some computing power for a more compact form-factor.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
If more complexity would bring in more power, nobody would be complaining. The problem is that those capabilities are not there. You get mostly the same experience, with more glitter, but much slower. This is a case for desktop software too, but it's especially pronounced on the web.
Jtsummers 8y ago
You don't get increased capability just because of increased complexity. I worked (until a couple months ago) on a system that was about 10x larger (SLOC) than an earlier similar system. But it didn't offer 10x the value or capability. Ignoring the costs of maintaining that complexity, it was at best a 2x increase in capability. Accounting for the costs, it was a net loss. Finally: "same but faster" is a valid capability that people want. I want a compiler that is simply the same, but faster. Once I hit a certain threshhold of speed improvement, then I'll entertain an actual capability improvement (more compiler features like incorporating static analysis or whatever).
xg15 8y ago
But what actually happens is that you have faster hardware but the user experience is exactly the same (or even slower) - but the developer experience is improved.
ben_w 8y ago
Two years ago, it was reported that the average webpage was a bigger download than Doom — 2.39MB. Which is a better user experience: 1) Download an enormous framework that also runs slower and slower each year on constant hardware, because developers add more features? 2) Download a tiny page which hands heavy lifting off to the server (if you really do that the pages are only about 8kb plus images), and which requests an equally tiny page when the user does something requiring a server response? It won’t be the same for every app, of course, but most of the content I see online doesn’t need or even benefit from JavaScript. I’ve literally turned it off by default and generally get a better UX… yes with a few exceptions, but only a few.
- ccajas 8y ago
  Typically it seems to come from the encouragement to offload more of the website logic to the client side. A WordPress install takes usually 15MB of disk space. a lot of that is PHP code that runs on your server. That will never be seen by browsers as it's sharing the work between server and client. The onset of SPA's what contributes to this. It's making server-side content generation leaner, although sometimes at the expense of the user experience with worse page responsiveness during downloads. What's debatable is if the user benefits are worth the increase of upfront UX cost.
jazzyjackson 8y ago
One point made in OP is that not everyone has the latest fastest hardware. Did you check out the clip comparing code.gov rendering their SPA on a new iphone vs a lowend android device ? Millions of people are dealing with extremely subpar experiences because developers are building their website on a work-provided macbook pro on a gigabit connection to their office... Sure, chrome lets you simulate 2G connections and all that, but last time I checked it didn't simulate the slowdown of compiling 2MB of javascript on an old phone. Could be a revealing constraint to put in the developer tools.
- gboss 8y ago
  You actually can throttle your cpu with chrome developer tools. I often use it when profiling my client side code. I also don't like to have the fastest phone, I have a Nexus5x, because it helps me know if it works on my phone it will run great elsewhere. I recommend other front end developers do the same.
  - kkarakk 8y ago
    even the nexus5x is a magnitude beyond what actually poor low income households typically have access to. think feature phones not smartphones

eridius 8y ago

Computing power doesn't unconditionally increase. As our computers get better, we produce ever-smaller computers, trading away some computing power for a more compact form-factor.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

If more complexity would bring in more power, nobody would be complaining. The problem is that those capabilities are not there. You get mostly the same experience, with more glitter, but much slower. This is a case for desktop software too, but it's especially pronounced on the web.

Jtsummers 8y ago

You don't get increased capability just because of increased complexity. I worked (until a couple months ago) on a system that was about 10x larger (SLOC) than an earlier similar system. But it didn't offer 10x the value or capability. Ignoring the costs of maintaining that complexity, it was at best a 2x increase in capability. Accounting for the costs, it was a net loss. Finally: "same but faster" is a valid capability that people want. I want a compiler that is simply the same, but faster. Once I hit a certain threshhold of speed improvement, then I'll entertain an actual capability improvement (more compiler features like incorporating static analysis or whatever).

xg15 8y ago

But what actually happens is that you have faster hardware but the user experience is exactly the same (or even slower) - but the developer experience is improved.

ben_w 8y ago

Two years ago, it was reported that the average webpage was a bigger download than Doom — 2.39MB. Which is a better user experience: 1) Download an enormous framework that also runs slower and slower each year on constant hardware, because developers add more features? 2) Download a tiny page which hands heavy lifting off to the server (if you really do that the pages are only about 8kb plus images), and which requests an equally tiny page when the user does something requiring a server response? It won’t be the same for every app, of course, but most of the content I see online doesn’t need or even benefit from JavaScript. I’ve literally turned it off by default and generally get a better UX… yes with a few exceptions, but only a few.

ccajas 8y ago
Typically it seems to come from the encouragement to offload more of the website logic to the client side. A WordPress install takes usually 15MB of disk space. a lot of that is PHP code that runs on your server. That will never be seen by browsers as it's sharing the work between server and client. The onset of SPA's what contributes to this. It's making server-side content generation leaner, although sometimes at the expense of the user experience with worse page responsiveness during downloads. What's debatable is if the user benefits are worth the increase of upfront UX cost.

jazzyjackson 8y ago

One point made in OP is that not everyone has the latest fastest hardware. Did you check out the clip comparing code.gov rendering their SPA on a new iphone vs a lowend android device ? Millions of people are dealing with extremely subpar experiences because developers are building their website on a work-provided macbook pro on a gigabit connection to their office... Sure, chrome lets you simulate 2G connections and all that, but last time I checked it didn't simulate the slowdown of compiling 2MB of javascript on an old phone. Could be a revealing constraint to put in the developer tools.

gboss 8y ago
You actually can throttle your cpu with chrome developer tools. I often use it when profiling my client side code. I also don't like to have the fastest phone, I have a Nexus5x, because it helps me know if it works on my phone it will run great elsewhere. I recommend other front end developers do the same.
- kkarakk 8y ago
  even the nexus5x is a magnitude beyond what actually poor low income households typically have access to. think feature phones not smartphones