3 ms·
Anecdotally, I disagree. Considering all the extra JS it requires to preload, I also question it from a practical standpoint. Of course, if you are otherwise
by sam_goody 6y ago
Anecdotally, I disagree.
Considering all the extra JS it requires to preload, I also question it from a practical standpoint.
Of course, if you are otherwise including 3MB of JS for no reason, and it isn't cached, and you aren't using a CDN, maybe, perhaps, Google's CDN might serve it faster..
Though to be fair, I use FF, so AMP is hostile to it, and anyways FF has this great reader mode..
But do you have any numbers to back up the claims that any AMP pages are ever better?