3 ms·

This. If you are loading some scripts that are actually required for your app or page to work right, why would you get them from someone else's infrastructure?

This. If you are loading some scripts that are actually required for your app or page to work right, why would you get them from someone else's infrastructure? Terminal laziness? Or is the assumption that XYZ corp has more incentive than you do to keep your page working? This never made much sense to me except for developer toys & tutorials.

jimmydorry 6y ago
It makes sense from a $$ and resource usage stand point. I have to assume the best here and believe that the people arguing on there being no merit to CDN hosting of shared libraries all forgetting the two most important things a business must consider. Every byte sent will cost the business. If you can save that 2MB per user per cache life, you pay that much less on the internet bill for your hosting. Every byte sent uses up some of your limited bandwidth while it is being sent. If your site is 10KB and you rely on 2MB of javascript libraries and fonts, offloading that 2MB is quite a significant reduction is resource usage. These above two views seem vastly more important than terminal laziness, up-time management, etc.
- bigiain 6y ago
  > If your site is 10KB and you rely on 2MB of javascript libraries and fonts, ... then you're doin' it wrong.
  - dozzman 6y ago
    > ... then you're doin' it wrong. 100%. Its mind blowing that this could possibly be considered without batting an eyelid.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > If you can save that 2MB per user per cache life, you pay that much less on the internet bill for your hosting Ah yes - I remember those _dark days_ of being a shared webhosting customer over a decade ago and stressing about breaking my 500GB/mo data transfer limit. Today, Azure's outbound data costs on the order of $0.08/GB, so 1MB is $0.000078125, so the cost of 2MB of JS is $0.00015625. Supposing you have one million new visitors every month (i.e. nothing's cached at their end so they'll download the full 2MB) - those one million visitors will cost you $156.25 in data-transfer. Compare that to the immediate cost to the business of paying their SWEs and SREs to trim down the site's resources to a more realistic few-hundred-KB, supposing that's a good 2-3 week project for 3-4 people - assuming a W/Best Coast company, that's ( $250k / 52 ) * 3 * 4 == $57,000. From looking at those numbers, there is absolutely no business case in optimizing web content - it's now significantly cheaper (on paper) to have a crappy UX and slow load-times than it is to fix it.

jimmydorry 6y ago

It makes sense from a $$ and resource usage stand point. I have to assume the best here and believe that the people arguing on there being no merit to CDN hosting of shared libraries all forgetting the two most important things a business must consider. Every byte sent will cost the business. If you can save that 2MB per user per cache life, you pay that much less on the internet bill for your hosting. Every byte sent uses up some of your limited bandwidth while it is being sent. If your site is 10KB and you rely on 2MB of javascript libraries and fonts, offloading that 2MB is quite a significant reduction is resource usage. These above two views seem vastly more important than terminal laziness, up-time management, etc.

bigiain 6y ago
> If your site is 10KB and you rely on 2MB of javascript libraries and fonts, ... then you're doin' it wrong.
- dozzman 6y ago
  > ... then you're doin' it wrong. 100%. Its mind blowing that this could possibly be considered without batting an eyelid.
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> If you can save that 2MB per user per cache life, you pay that much less on the internet bill for your hosting Ah yes - I remember those _dark days_ of being a shared webhosting customer over a decade ago and stressing about breaking my 500GB/mo data transfer limit. Today, Azure's outbound data costs on the order of $0.08/GB, so 1MB is $0.000078125, so the cost of 2MB of JS is $0.00015625. Supposing you have one million new visitors every month (i.e. nothing's cached at their end so they'll download the full 2MB) - those one million visitors will cost you $156.25 in data-transfer. Compare that to the immediate cost to the business of paying their SWEs and SREs to trim down the site's resources to a more realistic few-hundred-KB, supposing that's a good 2-3 week project for 3-4 people - assuming a W/Best Coast company, that's ( $250k / 52 ) * 3 * 4 == $57,000. From looking at those numbers, there is absolutely no business case in optimizing web content - it's now significantly cheaper (on paper) to have a crappy UX and slow load-times than it is to fix it.