11 ms·

Technically of course Firefox failed to live with an old kernel and insane JS code. Morally it's Google. Google is like Bitcoin. A huge natural ressource hog

Technically of course Firefox failed to live with an old kernel and insane JS code. Morally it's Google. Google is like Bitcoin. A huge natural ressource hog for a questionable benefit. Here the benefit is tracking users to make advertising billions. For that goal a billion of smart phones need several extra GB of memory an significantly larger batteries. What is the ecological footprint of that? Typing on a seven year old smart phone with 2 GB (SailfishOS, so yes it is maintained. Maybe not perfectly, but better than many Androids half as old). It works quite well on reasonable pages even without add blocking. Of course super heavy pages won't work and for Google search I haven't even consented. Occasionally I get reminded of that when some site embeds it. Well, a good reminder for me not to use them.

fathyb 3y ago
This does not appear that crazy to me. In fact, today it's almost a recommended practice for large web applications and it's called "tree shaking". ECMAScript modules are inlined into the same scope. It makes the JIT work easier because it now works with symbols instead of `require(foo).bar` calls to speculate on. It makes most web apps run better, both in bandwidth and compute. It's very likely to have affected users on other websites, but Google is a common denominator for debugging. My uneducated guess: they're using the Google Closure Compiler to make smaller JavaScript bundles. It saves some bandwidth and allows for better optimizations. It seems like a reasonable engineering decision to ensure product decisions don't affect the user experience too negatively, something a lot of us are familiar with..
- usr1106 3y ago
  Right, optimization is good. But first building insanely heavy functionality and then optimizing it is not sustainable approach. The background is of course that increasingly heavy function is moved into the client. Technically and especially economically this makes sense for Google. But the environmental footprint is outsourced to client devices. Greenwashing in a way. Avoidance of computing is a better solution than all types of optimizations. Not everything that is technically feasible is good for the planet and mankind.
- Izkata 3y ago
  > In fact, today it's almost a recommended practice for large web applications and it's called "tree shaking". ECMAScript modules are inlined into the same scope. It makes the JIT work easier because it now works with symbols instead of `require(foo).bar` calls to speculate on. It makes most web apps run better, both in bandwidth and compute. That's bundling, not tree shaking. Tree shaking is an optional additional process during bundling where unreachable code is automatically removed.
  - fathyb 3y ago
    Bundling does not inline all symbols into a single scope, tree shaking does. I was one of the people implementing tree shaking in the first Parcel bundler. https://github.com/parcel-bundler/parcel/pull/1135 https://github.com/parcel-bundler/parcel/pull/1135
    - uhryks 3y ago
      Scope hoisting is the technique used there (it's in the title of your link) to simplify tree shaking a.k.a dead code elimination. Also yeah it's unlikely to be what's happening in that bug due to Google using Closure compiler.
veave 3y ago
Nice rant. Absolutely unrelated to the technical article at hand, but nice rant.

fathyb 3y ago

This does not appear that crazy to me. In fact, today it's almost a recommended practice for large web applications and it's called "tree shaking". ECMAScript modules are inlined into the same scope. It makes the JIT work easier because it now works with symbols instead of `require(foo).bar` calls to speculate on. It makes most web apps run better, both in bandwidth and compute. It's very likely to have affected users on other websites, but Google is a common denominator for debugging. My uneducated guess: they're using the Google Closure Compiler to make smaller JavaScript bundles. It saves some bandwidth and allows for better optimizations. It seems like a reasonable engineering decision to ensure product decisions don't affect the user experience too negatively, something a lot of us are familiar with..

usr1106 3y ago
Right, optimization is good. But first building insanely heavy functionality and then optimizing it is not sustainable approach. The background is of course that increasingly heavy function is moved into the client. Technically and especially economically this makes sense for Google. But the environmental footprint is outsourced to client devices. Greenwashing in a way. Avoidance of computing is a better solution than all types of optimizations. Not everything that is technically feasible is good for the planet and mankind.
Izkata 3y ago
> In fact, today it's almost a recommended practice for large web applications and it's called "tree shaking". ECMAScript modules are inlined into the same scope. It makes the JIT work easier because it now works with symbols instead of `require(foo).bar` calls to speculate on. It makes most web apps run better, both in bandwidth and compute. That's bundling, not tree shaking. Tree shaking is an optional additional process during bundling where unreachable code is automatically removed.
- fathyb 3y ago
  Bundling does not inline all symbols into a single scope, tree shaking does. I was one of the people implementing tree shaking in the first Parcel bundler. https://github.com/parcel-bundler/parcel/pull/1135 https://github.com/parcel-bundler/parcel/pull/1135
  - uhryks 3y ago
    Scope hoisting is the technique used there (it's in the title of your link) to simplify tree shaking a.k.a dead code elimination. Also yeah it's unlikely to be what's happening in that bug due to Google using Closure compiler.

veave 3y ago

Nice rant. Absolutely unrelated to the technical article at hand, but nice rant.