4 ms·

From the graphs it looks like Websites size increases 4-fold every decade. So it will be 8 MB in 2030, and 16^H^H32 MB in 2040. On my current connection that on

From the graphs it looks like Websites size increases 4-fold every decade. So it will be 8 MB in 2030, and 16^H^H32 MB in 2040. On my current connection that only takes around 4 seconds. Its better than what i feared.

Jensson 4y ago
> From the graphs it looks like Websites size increases 4-fold every decade. So it will be 8 MB in 2030, and 16 MB in 2040 You mean 32MB 2040?
hackernewds 4y ago
That assumes a linear growth. Within such a short timeframe, most progressions appear linear.
- LinAGKar 4y ago
  No, that's an exponential growth
- blueflow 4y ago
  "4-fold every decade" is exponential, not linear.
yieldcrv 4y ago
yeah, I could see that. web3.js is a super bloated library and will be added more frequently unless a team does a more optimal version from scratch https://github.com/ChainSafe/web3.js/issues/1178 https://github.com/ChainSafe/web3.js/issues/1178
- iainmerrick 4y ago
  The second-last comment on that issue is pretty clear: The issue with the lib is its non-treeshakeable nature. It should be rewritten using ES6 modules. That doesn't seem so hard, unless I'm missing something. Certainly shouldn't need a full rewrite from scratch. My point is, it's not just about bloat and having too many features (which are very hard problems to fix); it's often low-hanging fruit that isn't being picked.
- pavlov 4y ago
  Luckily it's very easy to avoid these "web3 dapps" (sigh). And if you don't, an extra megabyte of JavaScript junk seems like a minor problem compared to the usual crypto user experience of losing all your money and/or becoming a cultish bore.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    fortunately there are many other crypto user experiences that don't require cultish fealty to a project or token ready contract data from the nearest node is a pretty benign and common aspect of what web3 inclusion in a site does. just accessing variables and constants in a cloud data store that can be read for free.
tecleandor 4y ago
Although I'm kinda worried about the size, I'm more worried about the quantity of Javascript (or whatever client side language of the moment) and CSS will we run.
onion2k 4y ago
From the graphs it looks like Websites size increases 4-fold every decade. So do screen resolutions, and when you include images and video in the website size it seems reasonable they'll be getting bigger.
- noxer 4y ago
  >So do screen resolutions Maybe on phones but not on laptop. Resolutions went down after like 2009. I have a 14+ year old laptop with a WUXGA (1920x1200) screen. That is similar to FHD but 16:10 not 16:9 so its a bit higher that FHD (which is the standard today).
  - onion2k 4y ago
    And now, a little more than a decade later, 4K and 5K monitors and laptops (2x pixel density at some sort of scaled display resolution in a lot of cases) are common. A new Macbook has a screen resolution of 3456x2234 native pixels, which is the same as CSS pixels if you're not using display scaling. That's very close to ~4 times as many pixels as your old FHD laptop. Web developers will often send 2x pixel density images to browsers, especially on mobile, if they've not put the time in to optimize what they're sending based on media queries or client hints.
    - noxer 4y ago
      The default for a laptop and even for a desktop monitor today is still 1920x1080. Yes the rage has been extended to way higher resolutions than 10 or 15 years ago but only the higher-end devices actually use them. If you go in an office building FHD screens are the norm maybe 2 of them. The average user who doesn't care about specs of his laptop and doesn't have a ifruit product as status symbol (or because hes trapped in the fruit ecosystem) will have a 1920x1080 screen laptop.
      - onion2k 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what the default is. When you make a website you need to make it work for everyone, including people at the edges. That means delivering something that works on a 'retina' display, which means using high resolution assets. Web devs should be building sites that deliver the best assets for the users device, but they often don't and just send the giant images and let the users browser scale them down to fit. Hence bigger websites.

Jensson 4y ago

> From the graphs it looks like Websites size increases 4-fold every decade. So it will be 8 MB in 2030, and 16 MB in 2040 You mean 32MB 2040?

hackernewds 4y ago

That assumes a linear growth. Within such a short timeframe, most progressions appear linear.

LinAGKar 4y ago
No, that's an exponential growth
blueflow 4y ago
"4-fold every decade" is exponential, not linear.

yieldcrv 4y ago

yeah, I could see that. web3.js is a super bloated library and will be added more frequently unless a team does a more optimal version from scratch https://github.com/ChainSafe/web3.js/issues/1178 https://github.com/ChainSafe/web3.js/issues/1178

iainmerrick 4y ago
The second-last comment on that issue is pretty clear: The issue with the lib is its non-treeshakeable nature. It should be rewritten using ES6 modules. That doesn't seem so hard, unless I'm missing something. Certainly shouldn't need a full rewrite from scratch. My point is, it's not just about bloat and having too many features (which are very hard problems to fix); it's often low-hanging fruit that isn't being picked.
pavlov 4y ago
Luckily it's very easy to avoid these "web3 dapps" (sigh). And if you don't, an extra megabyte of JavaScript junk seems like a minor problem compared to the usual crypto user experience of losing all your money and/or becoming a cultish bore.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  fortunately there are many other crypto user experiences that don't require cultish fealty to a project or token ready contract data from the nearest node is a pretty benign and common aspect of what web3 inclusion in a site does. just accessing variables and constants in a cloud data store that can be read for free.

tecleandor 4y ago

Although I'm kinda worried about the size, I'm more worried about the quantity of Javascript (or whatever client side language of the moment) and CSS will we run.

onion2k 4y ago

From the graphs it looks like Websites size increases 4-fold every decade. So do screen resolutions, and when you include images and video in the website size it seems reasonable they'll be getting bigger.

noxer 4y ago
>So do screen resolutions Maybe on phones but not on laptop. Resolutions went down after like 2009. I have a 14+ year old laptop with a WUXGA (1920x1200) screen. That is similar to FHD but 16:10 not 16:9 so its a bit higher that FHD (which is the standard today).
- onion2k 4y ago
  And now, a little more than a decade later, 4K and 5K monitors and laptops (2x pixel density at some sort of scaled display resolution in a lot of cases) are common. A new Macbook has a screen resolution of 3456x2234 native pixels, which is the same as CSS pixels if you're not using display scaling. That's very close to ~4 times as many pixels as your old FHD laptop. Web developers will often send 2x pixel density images to browsers, especially on mobile, if they've not put the time in to optimize what they're sending based on media queries or client hints.
  - noxer 4y ago
    The default for a laptop and even for a desktop monitor today is still 1920x1080. Yes the rage has been extended to way higher resolutions than 10 or 15 years ago but only the higher-end devices actually use them. If you go in an office building FHD screens are the norm maybe 2 of them. The average user who doesn't care about specs of his laptop and doesn't have a ifruit product as status symbol (or because hes trapped in the fruit ecosystem) will have a 1920x1080 screen laptop.
    - onion2k 4y ago
      It doesn't matter what the default is. When you make a website you need to make it work for everyone, including people at the edges. That means delivering something that works on a 'retina' display, which means using high resolution assets. Web devs should be building sites that deliver the best assets for the users device, but they often don't and just send the giant images and let the users browser scale them down to fit. Hence bigger websites.