4 ms·
one could also just ship less javascript - the linked page requires 350(!)kb of javascript - for a site that could very well be a static one
by YHwqFf 6y ago
one could also just ship less javascript - the linked page requires 350(!)kb of javascript - for a site that could very well be a static one
- drydenwilliams 6y agoVery good point! Interestingly though that 350 KB is still smaller than the 441 KB average JavaScript for a site in 2020.
- YHwqFf 6y agowhich is a pity for everyone calling themselves "web developers"
- drydenwilliams 6y agoI agree, think you might like this that I've been making: https://ecoping.earth/indexes/gb/digitalagencies https://ecoping.earth/indexes/gb/digitalagencies
- developit 6y agoNit: 212kb, the rest is a YouTube embed that I seem to recall is loaded lazily.
- dassurma 6y agoTo be clear: It doesn’t _require_ JS at all. The page _is_ static and works with JS disabled. It uses JS for YouTube, Login and the interactive widgets at the bottom.