4 ms·
Keyword and. Ads and bloat. Adblocking doesn't get rid of all bloat. And GP's point still stands. 17ms vs the typical 2s minimum a site takes to load is massiv
by BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Keyword and. Ads and bloat. Adblocking doesn't get rid of all bloat.
And GP's point still stands. 17ms vs the typical 2s minimum a site takes to load is massive given the differences in what is demanded. Games actively got faster despite being more intense, websites active got slower despite relatively similar output.
Webdev's performance is shocklingly bad relative to most other subfields.
- iainmerrick 4y agoComparing the loading time of a website to the frame render time of a console game hardly seems fair. Plenty of websites scroll at 60fps or 120fps just fine (and those that don’t definitely deserve to be criticised). How many console games can load from scratch in only a few seconds?
- emsy 4y agoYour comparing gigabytes of data to a few MB. Now that hardly seems fair.
- maccard 4y agoThis is a reasonable point, _but_ how much data do games need to load versus a website. Using Twitter as an example, when I open it I can see 4 tweets. Assuming each tweet is 1MB (for easy math), I have a 500Mb WiFi connection, I should be be able to do 100 tweets in under a second. Meanwhile most/many games are pulling in gigabytes of data in textures and audio data. Spiderman on PS5 is under 15 seconds from the home screen to being in game, playing which is about how long it takes for the Facebook mobile website to load.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y agoComparing latency and throughput of local and remote assets says nothing.
- alrlroipsp 4y agoGP's point ignores the load times of a game (the time it takes to have a usable game-no progress bar), and instead compares FRAME time (17 ms to render a single frame) with the LOAD TIME of a website. You too ignore this.