4 ms·
A lot of HTML's nowadays have 100 - 300 kb. That's only the HTML (!!). Adding 400 for such a high quality piece of DB actually borders reasonability. And make
by rmbyrro 2y ago
A lot of HTML's nowadays have 100 - 300 kb. That's only the HTML (!!).
Adding 400 for such a high quality piece of DB actually borders reasonability.
And makes me think: what the hell are frontend devs thinking!? Multiple MB's in JS for a news website. Hundreds of KB's for HTML. It's totally unreasonable.
- wahern 2y ago> what the hell are frontend devs thinking!? Multiple MB's in JS for a news website. Hundreds of KB's for HTML. It's totally unreasonable They're thinking, "adding [some fraction of existing total payload] for such a high quality [feature] actually borders reasonability". Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> They're thinking, "adding [some fraction of existing total payload] for such a high quality [feature] actually borders reasonability". Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Context makes all the difference here. If you're considering a big chunk of size for a relational database engine, you need to ask: are you making a complex application, or a normal web page? If it's the latter, then it's not reasonable at all. And anything that makes the HTML itself that big is almost certainly bloat, not "high quality", and shouldn't be used in any context.
- rmbyrro 2y agoYou're comparing 2 Mb of useless and broken animated scrolling with 400 Kb of SQLite, which tells me you have no idea what's behind SQLite's 400 kb. High quality software is something I rarely see nowadays when browsing "modern" websites.
- jsheard 2y ago> A lot of HTML's nowadays have 100 - 300 kb. That's only the HTML (!!). I think you can probably blame Tailwind for that.
- yoavm 2y agoWhy? More often than not the classes are combined during post-processing to the most reusable unified classes, with very short classes names.