3 ms·

Yeah I don't understand this at all. The main reason I don't use Github is because of the high latency. I really dislike their source browser -- it has really

by chubot 14y ago

Yeah I don't understand this at all. The main reason I don't use Github is because of the high latency. I really dislike their source browser -- it has really low information density and the animation clumsily hides latency.

chubot 14y ago
EDIT: I did some spot checks with chrome developer tools on a project linked from their front page: https://github.com/rails/rails https://github.com/rails/rails Chrome is reporting the code tab is taking 3.7 seconds to load. 22 HTTP requests. The Pull tab has over 100 HTTP requests. I don't consider anything over 1s to be fast. Even the initial HTML is taking more than 1.5 seconds on the Pull tab! I think you should aim for 200ms for the HTML, and maybe 1s total. This is many times slower.
- notJim 14y ago
  Do you have an idea of a site that you consider fast? I just checked a few sites around the web, and 1.x seconds seems pretty average (I'm looking at the onload time, as that seems like a somewhat-maybe scientific way of looking at things.)
  - chubot 14y ago
    Most Google sites (less so lately since there is more Ajax), craigslist, reddit of 4 years ago, HN of 2 years ago. Basically all the bare-bones content-driven sites, since people tend to write JS and CSS in a way that makes the site at least 100% slower. Amazon is pretty decent. Their full page loads are slow, but they concentrate on above-the-fold time which is OK. I don't use Facebook much, but I think they have pretty good latency. I think Microsoft's new mail is pretty fast but I haven't used it much. I would say 1.x seconds for initial HTML is average. And 3-4 seconds for the full page with all assets is average. Github is in the 3-4 seconds range for onload time. So Github is not particularly bad -- it's just average. It's certainly not "fast". I feel like Github's perceived latency is pretty bad. I think they end up showing spinners and redrawing various parts of page to try to hide latency, but it makes it seem janky to me.
  - teejae 14y ago
    I think we at YouTube think our site loads pretty fast.

by chubot 14y ago

chubot 14y ago

EDIT: I did some spot checks with chrome developer tools on a project linked from their front page: https://github.com/rails/rails https://github.com/rails/rails Chrome is reporting the code tab is taking 3.7 seconds to load. 22 HTTP requests. The Pull tab has over 100 HTTP requests. I don't consider anything over 1s to be fast. Even the initial HTML is taking more than 1.5 seconds on the Pull tab! I think you should aim for 200ms for the HTML, and maybe 1s total. This is many times slower.

notJim 14y ago
Do you have an idea of a site that you consider fast? I just checked a few sites around the web, and 1.x seconds seems pretty average (I'm looking at the onload time, as that seems like a somewhat-maybe scientific way of looking at things.)
- chubot 14y ago
  Most Google sites (less so lately since there is more Ajax), craigslist, reddit of 4 years ago, HN of 2 years ago. Basically all the bare-bones content-driven sites, since people tend to write JS and CSS in a way that makes the site at least 100% slower. Amazon is pretty decent. Their full page loads are slow, but they concentrate on above-the-fold time which is OK. I don't use Facebook much, but I think they have pretty good latency. I think Microsoft's new mail is pretty fast but I haven't used it much. I would say 1.x seconds for initial HTML is average. And 3-4 seconds for the full page with all assets is average. Github is in the 3-4 seconds range for onload time. So Github is not particularly bad -- it's just average. It's certainly not "fast". I feel like Github's perceived latency is pretty bad. I think they end up showing spinners and redrawing various parts of page to try to hide latency, but it makes it seem janky to me.
- teejae 14y ago
  I think we at YouTube think our site loads pretty fast.