8 ms·
We reduced the size of our JavaScript bundles by 33%
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- k__ 3y ago"When was the last time you were about to click a button on a website, only to have the page shift—causing you to click the wrong button instead?" On mobile Twitter/X it happens every time I reload the page.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bonestamp2 3y agoYa, basically every site where they load inline advertisements of an unknown height (or maybe they intentionally leave the height out of the CSS so you accidentally click on the ad).
- tracker1 3y agoI have to think it's often intentional... It's the most annoying thing tapping/clicking and then the ad url comes up instead of what you were expecting.
- bensecure 3y agoThey added a neat feature recently where they have a popup asking you something stupid, with a button you have to click to hide it. Then, exactly as the page seems loaded enough for you to attempt tapping the button, a new popup appears from google asking if you want to share your google account with twitter, with the "agree" button in the exact position of the previous button. It didn't work on me, but seems like a pretty cool doxx nonetheless.
- jes5199 3y agoone time I worked at a company that shipped an app with a version of this bug that caused people to charge money to the wrong individual, because sometimes the buttons would shuffle right before the click
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoTL;DR, they had a better look at their dependencies, applied code splitting, and used Rollup. They updated their build from the initial 2014 version, at long last.
- no_wizard 3y agoSomething webpack doesn't get right to this day: building consumable libraries. It has all the bones, and it would be great if it did, as its extremely powerful at manipulating the AST as part of the process etc so you could do some neat optimizations, but it won't output to a standard format, even with experimental ESM output feature enabled, that makes the library reasonably consumable. Rollup / Vite really excel here but I love competition pushing things forward, meaning webpack having a better library building experience would be a good thing.
- TheRealPomax 3y agoesbuild any day. JS tooling doesn't need to be written in JS, and when it's not, it's properly blazing fast.
- thangngoc89 3y agoVite uses esbuild under the hood. Providing much nicer DX
- IggleSniggle 3y agoDepends on what you need, tbh. I looked into Vite briefly but esbuild seemed more obvious/ direct for hooking into the build system.
- dgb23 3y agoAt this point in my life I think "DX" - if you mean things like performance, reliability, simplicity and maintainability - is inversely proportional to the amount of (transitive) dependencies, layers of abstraction and (only half jokingly) also the percentage of JS that something includes. I've encountered a pretty back breaking memory leak in vite that has been unresolved for about 2y now. The project I work on that uses vite doesn't need the flexibility, feature set and plugin system that vite offers. It just needs a fast bundler.
- sharts 3y ago[flagged]
- sf_sugar_daddy 3y ago[dead]
- kitanata 3y ago[flagged]
- behnamoh 3y agoI know some people still use Dropbox, but tbh it never clicked for me. It went from being a simple cloud solution to a bloated crapware. To my surprise, MS OneDrive performs better than DB, but it's kinda slow at times. Google Drive otoh, is fast but I'd never put all my data there. iCloud is "ecosystem-ware"—you can access it from Android and Windows, for sure, but the UI treats you like a child (maybe it was made for kids). On top of that, Apple is anal in terms of authentication. I don't want to own an iDevice just to login to my cloud. I wonder if there are genuinely decent cloud platforms out there...
- arielcostas 3y ago[dead]
- nprateem 3y agoI just use rsync
- wmichelin 3y agothis is overly simplistic. rsync to where? please tell us more :p
- pkos98 3y agoIt may be a reference to this famous comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 :)
- shortcake27 3y agoIt depends on your needs. I primarily used Dropbox as a backup destination for a range of directories on my computer. About a decade ago, this worked great. All I had to do was create a symlink within my Dropbox and the directories were backed up. Then a few years ago, Dropbox stopped supporting symlinks because they “caused problems”. It’s unclear what problems exactly because I’ve never actually heard of anyone who experienced any issues. Nonetheless, the solution was to move the real directories into Dropbox and put a symlink in their original location. This _did_ cause problems, including needing to disable SIP, and breaking navigation in Finder which treats symlinks like shortcuts. Finally, the latest update completely broke backups for me. Admittedly this was not Dropbox’s fault; they were forced by Apple to use a new API which doesn’t allow the Photos library to be backed up. I moved my backups to Backblaze B2 and cancelled my Dropbox subscription. Now I use rsync to back up my machine, and utilise Dropbox’s free tier for the small amount of cloud storage I actually need. Oh, and for the amount of data I back up, B2 is almost an order of magnitude cheaper.
- egberts1 3y agoI reduced my JavaScript 100% and experienced no loss of business.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoHow is the static-text "serving my own blog" business doing these days?
- lightbendover 3y agoWithout ads, probably pretty badly.
- egberts1 3y agoSo you are saying that this is what JavaScript is only good for? Rhetorical question here.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lightbendover 3y agoThat is not a valid takeaway from what I said at all, rhetorical or not.
- IggleSniggle 3y agoThere are bunches of ways to do dynamic sites that don't use any js, and even more that use just a tiny bit of js. For examples of the first, "update on submit" and "long-polling HTML" (you can use CSS to make this like an SPA) come immediately to mind. The first has the advantage of demanding a conversational UI (the UI never changes except when the user expects), and the second has, well, ok, not much, but it gives you a WebSockets-like flow while being compatible with mid-90s tech.
- Cpoll 3y ago
- not_your_vase 3y agoI just have to laugh. This website is 6.36MB big, out of which 4.51 MB is Javascript. Congrats, I guess.
- lionkor 3y agoOf course, it has to display text, images (gasp!), and needs working links (oh!!). Thats at least 150 npm packages already.
- Joeri 3y agoIf only, create react app is closer to 1500 packages. To be fair, the react team is moving away from CRA. However, they’re pushing people to next.js, which is even bigger.
- steve_adams_86 3y agoNext is also primarily maintained by Vercel, and that gives me the creeps as time goes on. Vercel resells other services and ensures Next.js deploys most seamlessly on its own platform. Sure, it's still easy to deploy anywhere, but you will hit edge cases where deep internals are tailored to their own platform. Perhaps I'm too pessimistic here, but I expect that to get worse. I wouldn't discourage anyone from using it for that reason alone, but I'm not sure I like React's team favouring a commercial-by-proxy framework.
- 0xblinq 3y agoThis is what I worth the most as well. In fact, you can already notice the conflict of interest in many of the GitHub issues.
- lionkor 3y agoThis goes to show that you need to work in the ecosystem to effectively meme on it - I had no idea it was an order of magnitude worse than I thought.
- 3y ago
- bern4444 3y agoIt amuses me that there is so much criticism of the modern web - but a modern app is massively larger. The dropbox app is 237.7 MB - that's so much more insane to me. Of course that app size does include all the assets - images, icons, fonts, etc which the JS bundle for the site doesn't include. But its still insanely large to me. I don't mean this as a criticism of the app size - just that web/android/ios all are platforms which require a large amount of code and assets to be uniform and available everywhere - web, desktop, phone, tablet, etc.
- psychoslave 3y ago>The dropbox app is 237.7 MB - that's so much more insane to me. I vividly remember "printer drivers" whose installer would take a whole CD.
- sitzkrieg 3y agocompletely agree, i dont have many apps on phone but the average size is over 200mb and they want to update constantly w hehe funny patch notes which is rude considering the bandwidth you expect users to burn updating. i find it completely amazing no one bats an eye on these ( not to mention the mobile data usage )
- JohnFen 3y ago> It amuses me that there is so much criticism of the modern web - but a modern app is massively larger. Both of these problems are ridiculous. But the web one is arguably more severe, since you only download an app once.
- uranusjr 3y agoWith modern caching don’t you also only download the web app once as well? I feel the reason web is worse is more because the download happens right before you want to use it, not ahead of time like app bundles.