3 ms·
Sure there are more resource-heavy places but I think the problem is general approach. Neglecting of performance and overall approach to resources brought us to
by timeon 1y ago
Sure there are more resource-heavy places but I think the problem is general approach.
Neglecting of performance and overall approach to resources brought us to these resource-heavy tools.
It seems just dismissive when people pointing to places where there could be made more cuts and call it a day.
If we want to really fix places with bigger impact we need to change this approach in a first place.
- qayxc 1y agoSure thing, but's not low-hanging fruit. The impact is so miniscule that the effort required is too high when compared to the benefit. This is micro-optimisation for a valid use case (slow connections in bandwidth-starved situations), but in the real world, a single hi-res image, short video clip, or audio sample would negate all your text-squeezing, HTTP header optimisation games, and struggle for minimalism. So for the vast majority of use cases it's simply irrelevant. And no, your website is likely not going to get 1,000,000 unique visitors per hour so you'd have a hard time even measuring the impact whereas simply NOT ordering pizza and having a home made salad instead would have a measurable impact orders of magnitude greater. Estimating the overall impact of your actions and non-actions is hard, but it's easier and more practical to optimise your assets, remove bloat (no megabytes of JS frameworks), and think about whether you really need that annoying full-screen video background. THOSE are low-hanging fruit with lots of impact. Trying to trim down a functional site to <14kB is NOT.