4 ms·
I think it should not be an all or nothing proposition. A little js for the right reason can be valuable. If we could instruct our browsers to use some budget
by blunte 5y ago
I think it should not be an all or nothing proposition. A little js for the right reason can be valuable.
If we could instruct our browsers to use some budget constraints, such as max js size, max number of network requests, and max time, it would force site designers to reign in the unnecessary bulk.
- chmod775 5y ago>it would force site designers to reign in the unnecessary bulk. Many sites are already near unusable on "low-specced" hardware that is used by about 80% of the world population, but most "software engineers" (I'm using that term really loosely here) don't care. My admittedly old but maxed out T440s chokes on twitch.tv. A good chunk of the world population still uses hardware that is considerably worse. It's no wonder that some western sites have problems penetrating other markets - their competition loads in the blink of an eye on my machine, while twitch has trouble even becoming interactive within 5 seconds. At this point I use underpowered hardware on purpose, because if my T440s can't adequately run our application or the build takes too long, then I know we have a problem.
- zauguin 5y agoI really don't expect a page to work perfectly without JS. If some small feature uses it that's perfectly fine. But if I visit a page with JS disabled, I want these features using it to be broken and not the entire page to be unusable... A little JS for the right reason can be very valuable, but requiring JS just to get a minimally usable page is insane.