> I absolutely disagree that we didn’t experience life-changing performance improvements. Of course I don't disagree with this either. But this (as well as try

> I absolutely disagree that we didn’t experience life-changing performance improvements. Of course I don't disagree with this either. But this (as well as trying to run modern internet websites on older hardware) doesn't mean much- it's a fact that software always fills up all the capacity allowed by hardware, sometimes with features, but more often with frills and more layers of indirection. What I disagree with is that javascript (and browsers) were too slow to make interactive web applications: in fact they were possible, and the ones we still use were born around 2005: gmail (probably faster then than now), google spreadsheets, maps (I made a complex dashboard in 2005 incorporating microsoft maps, that became bing) etc. Programming was much more "close to the metal"- as much as this means anything in a web browser- but the results were usable- not as graphically fancy or feature rich as today's, but ok for many use cases. Bundle sizes also have exploded as a result of the complexity of the frameworks. But that doesn't mean the applications are more interactive or have more features, they're just fancier and, from the point of view of developers, more maintainable.