3 ms·
Classic HN. Snarky, condescending and nothing of substance. Reminds me why I visit HN less and less lately.
by johncena33 6y ago
Classic HN. Snarky, condescending and nothing of substance. Reminds me why I visit HN less and less lately.
- voze 6y agoBut don't you see that the person you replied to is an unrecognized holier-than-thou genius? Get it together, man! ;)
- lovetocode 6y agoI mean, you are John Cena after all. You probably have much better things to do.
- Nextgrid 6y agoHe makes a valid point; why does a page with a text field and links to other pages need to weigh anywhere close to 700kB?
- bagacrap 6y agoknowledge cards are a lot more than links
- MacsHeadroom 6y agohttps://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite is ~100x faster.
- drivebycomment 6y agoMy chrome devtools says DDG took 900ms to load the search result on that page (searching for "foo bar"), vs Google search taking ~200ms for the initial result. And subjectively, comparing side by side, Google is faster to display the result. So your claim of 100x is not only inaccurate in quantity, it's opposite direction as well.
- rsynnott 6y agoI mean, it's fast _for an SPA that weighs 700kB compressed_. It is, however, substantially slower than it used to be, for no clear benefit.
- drivebycomment 6y agoYou want to claim it's substantially slower than before. Do you have data to back that up ? If it's based on your personal anecdote, my personal experience is that the speed stayed roughly similar. It has become more "cluttered" with lots of extra stuff - images, knowledge cards, list of items, maps, etc. But the page load speed has been mostly similar - fast enough, though not quite instant. When they first launched the search-as-you-type, it did feel instant but then I don't search on google.com anymore but use the chrome url bar.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html