4 ms·

A million! Imagine how much bandwidth HN could save if each comment didn't use nested font tags and inline styles ;)

seiji 16y ago
Or gzip for that matter. :) gzipping this thread page results in a 5x size decrease. Can't blame pg though. He's just a product of his computational adolescence. In another 15 years, we'll still be using CSS and divs while the kids move on to 3D direct brain interface temporal markup languages.
- ElbertF 16y ago
  Or tables with spacer images. What is this, 1995?
pg 16y ago
How much bandwidth would that save?
- gduffy 16y ago
  I'd guess anywhere from 100GB to 1TB every month depending on whether you did the inline style suggestion and/or the gzip suggestion. This page gzip'd: http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(52KB-10KB) http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(52KB-10KB) Front page gzip'd: http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(25KB-5KB) http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(25KB-5KB) So probably not worth it :)
  - zepolen 16y ago
    Gzip is always worth it, it lowers the per client transmission time and because browsers render gzipped pages after they have been loaded the page appears instantly in one go. It actually creates the impression of a faster site even if the real time to load is the same. Considering the only thing necessary to enable gzip is to enable it in the front facing web server and that it uses barely any cpu at all on level 4 I don't see why anyone wouldn't use it.
    - pg 16y ago
      the only thing necessary to enable gzip is to enable it in the front facing web server Somewhat more is necessary in this case.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - wladimir 16y ago
    Given that gzipping is generally a matter of adding a line to the web server configuration file, and it gives so much savings, I'd say it's worth it. As for the HTML suggestion, I'd skip that one, it's just a few bytes per comment and needs actual code changes.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
ZOMG! I'm actually really surprised by this .. does anyone know the rationale/reason for such poor markup and lack of optimisation?
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  > Arc embodies a similarly unPC attitude to HTML. The predefined libraries just do everything with tables. Why? Because Arc is tuned for exploratory programming, and the W3C-approved way of doing things represents the opposite spirit. http://www.paulgraham.com/arc0.html http://www.paulgraham.com/arc0.html
flyosity 16y ago
Wow, I never peeked at the HN HTML source before but it's pretty terrible. Tables nested within tables, tables used for layout and non-tabular data, CSS only used for colors and fonts. It's such a simple layout that I can't believe they didn't go all-CSS for it and make the HTML really semantic and tight.

seiji 16y ago

Or gzip for that matter. :) gzipping this thread page results in a 5x size decrease. Can't blame pg though. He's just a product of his computational adolescence. In another 15 years, we'll still be using CSS and divs while the kids move on to 3D direct brain interface temporal markup languages.

ElbertF 16y ago
Or tables with spacer images. What is this, 1995?

pg 16y ago

How much bandwidth would that save?

gduffy 16y ago
I'd guess anywhere from 100GB to 1TB every month depending on whether you did the inline style suggestion and/or the gzip suggestion. This page gzip'd: http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(52KB-10KB) http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(52KB-10KB) Front page gzip'd: http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(25KB-5KB) http://www.google.com/search?q=30+*+1e6+*+(25KB-5KB) So probably not worth it :)
- zepolen 16y ago
  Gzip is always worth it, it lowers the per client transmission time and because browsers render gzipped pages after they have been loaded the page appears instantly in one go. It actually creates the impression of a faster site even if the real time to load is the same. Considering the only thing necessary to enable gzip is to enable it in the front facing web server and that it uses barely any cpu at all on level 4 I don't see why anyone wouldn't use it.
  - pg 16y ago
    the only thing necessary to enable gzip is to enable it in the front facing web server Somewhat more is necessary in this case.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- wladimir 16y ago
  Given that gzipping is generally a matter of adding a line to the web server configuration file, and it gives so much savings, I'd say it's worth it. As for the HTML suggestion, I'd skip that one, it's just a few bytes per comment and needs actual code changes.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

ZOMG! I'm actually really surprised by this .. does anyone know the rationale/reason for such poor markup and lack of optimisation?

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
> Arc embodies a similarly unPC attitude to HTML. The predefined libraries just do everything with tables. Why? Because Arc is tuned for exploratory programming, and the W3C-approved way of doing things represents the opposite spirit. http://www.paulgraham.com/arc0.html http://www.paulgraham.com/arc0.html

flyosity 16y ago

Wow, I never peeked at the HN HTML source before but it's pretty terrible. Tables nested within tables, tables used for layout and non-tabular data, CSS only used for colors and fonts. It's such a simple layout that I can't believe they didn't go all-CSS for it and make the HTML really semantic and tight.