3 ms·
A huge % of internet users are on slow connections and cheap devices with slow processors/limited RAM, so "a few extra MB" of javascript dependencies can mean 1
by kevingadd 5y ago
A huge % of internet users are on slow connections and cheap devices with slow processors/limited RAM, so "a few extra MB" of javascript dependencies can mean 1+ second increases in load time on every page load
- kingcharles 5y agoAlso connections with small transfer limits. I am stuck on a cell connection and the limits make these huge sites unuseable as they eat $$ just to browse them.
- robomc 5y agoIt depends on the site and the use case, but I'd have thought that if you do, say, 10 minutes of interactions with a complex application, every few days, a chunked and cached SPA payload, with fairly light fetch requests for json after the initial load, would probably result in less transfer overall than a standard website. And again, leaving marketing / advertising / analytics scripts out of the picture, the JS in both cases will be a tiny part of the transfer when compared to images.
- cerved 5y agolaughs in Mb/s
- jbergens 5y agoIt shouldn't be on every page load. The first will take more time but then you cache the js. More js may be loaded but it should not be a few extra MB per page.
- kevingadd 5y agoJS takes time to parse and execute on slow phones