4 ms·

If the server side developers gave a s#!t, they'd just optimize for all clients. No need for clients to request it. Also, are any of these limits going to appl

If the server side developers gave a s#!t, they'd just optimize for all clients. No need for clients to request it. Also, are any of these limits going to apply to XHR? Or can I just use a loader and eval to get unlimited JS? And if the limits do apply, I assume that means gmail and maps simply stop working at some point?

warent 8y ago
> I assume that means gmail ... simply stop working at some point? Gmail still works? Seriously though the limits applying to XHR is a really good point. I'm guessing browsers would have to enforce some artificial restriction on the eval function, possibly prompting the user with "This webpage is attempting to run a large amount of [insert user-friendly layperson terminology here]. This may be related to advertiser abuse. Do you want to allow this?" But it's not clear how they plan to solve it for iframes either which could essentially grant unlimited JS as well. They have good intentions with the discussion and it's an interesting idea but I don't see it becoming reality until they can solve these problems which seem actually rather hard.
dooglius 8y ago
Doing this is how you get server side developers to give a shit.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  I dislike the assumption that the backenders don't care. I personally do. But I'm never given the choice to make a site lean. The priority is always "make it work" which is of course the right thing to do first, but after that nobody gives you time to make it smaller and faster. There's always the next ticket in the backlog and you cannot argue. So please, don't bash backenders. Many of us care and do our best with the very limited time budget we manage to STEAL to do optimizations. But proper optimizations require dedicated time and effort with focused sessions -- and we are never given those.

4 ms·

If the server side developers gave a s#!t, they'd just optimize for all clients. No need for clients to request it. Also, are any of these limits going to appl

by tedunangst 8y ago

warent 8y ago
> I assume that means gmail ... simply stop working at some point? Gmail still works? Seriously though the limits applying to XHR is a really good point. I'm guessing browsers would have to enforce some artificial restriction on the eval function, possibly prompting the user with "This webpage is attempting to run a large amount of [insert user-friendly layperson terminology here]. This may be related to advertiser abuse. Do you want to allow this?" But it's not clear how they plan to solve it for iframes either which could essentially grant unlimited JS as well. They have good intentions with the discussion and it's an interesting idea but I don't see it becoming reality until they can solve these problems which seem actually rather hard.
dooglius 8y ago
Doing this is how you get server side developers to give a shit.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  I dislike the assumption that the backenders don't care. I personally do. But I'm never given the choice to make a site lean. The priority is always "make it work" which is of course the right thing to do first, but after that nobody gives you time to make it smaller and faster. There's always the next ticket in the backlog and you cannot argue. So please, don't bash backenders. Many of us care and do our best with the very limited time budget we manage to STEAL to do optimizations. But proper optimizations require dedicated time and effort with focused sessions -- and we are never given those.