3 ms·

How about this? >> Marko delivers 12.6 kB raw (6.8 kB compressed). Next.js ships 497.8 kB raw (154.5 kB compressed). That’s a 39x difference in raw size that t

How about this? >> Marko delivers 12.6 kB raw (6.8 kB compressed). Next.js ships 497.8 kB raw (154.5 kB compressed). That’s a 39x difference in raw size that translates to real seconds on cellular networks. Sorry, it isn't 2006, cellular networks aren't spending "seconds" in the difference between 13kB and 500kB. Payload size can matter, but it's complete nonsense that 500kB would translate to "real seconds". Just spotted this section: >> The real-world cost: A 113 kB difference at 3G speeds (750 kbps) means 1.2 seconds for download plus 500ms to 1s for parse/execution on mobile CPUs. Total: 1.5 to 2 seconds slower between frameworks. 3G is literally being decommissioned, and 3G isn't 750kbps, it's significantly faster than that. > On first glance it seems very legit Yes, that's exactly the danger of AI slop. It's very plausible, very slick and very easy to digest. It also frequently contains unchecked errors without any strong signals that would traditionally go along with that.

lorenstewart 1y ago
I don't really know what to say except that you're wrong here. There are many studies out there about loading time affecting conversions/sales. I link to the most recent study done by Speed Curve about the damage slow loading apps do to business metrics. Not wanting to believe something is very different from the thing being untrue. The differences between 13kB and 500kB are quite real and quite measurable.
- lorenstewart 1y ago
  Related: 3G === spotty 4G (and you know from your own experience this is true)
mcintyre1994 1y ago
In the summary at the top they also use a different smallest compressed size: "The real differentiator? Bundle sizes range from 28.8 kB to 176.3 kB compressed." That's why I stopped reading at your first quote, it didn't fit with the summary and there's no point reading a bunch of numbers and wondering which are made up.
- lorenstewart 1y ago
  There are two measurements: the size of the index page, the size of the board page. You are quoting measurements of the board page.
lukan 1y ago
Hm. Have you ever spend time away from the city? The article cites also the use case, real estate agents. They also struggle at times with bad connection issues it seems. And with a bad connection average websites do take seconds to load for me.
- xnorswap 1y ago
  Questioning if I spend time away from a city is patronising nonsense. Websites taking seconds to load in bad mobile reception is usually down to latency and handshaking, not raw bandwidth. Show me a real world example of a single payload 500kB taking seconds longer than 13kB. It's not realistic.
  - lukan 1y ago
    I question it, because I live somewhere rural with bad connection and travel frequently around europe, where I often experience bad connection outside of cities, so I do value lightweight pages like the article authors propose as a metric. Heavy weight pages I don't even bother trying to load in some areas. "Show me a real world example of a single payload 500kB taking seconds longer than 13kB. It's not realistic." And my only comment towards this is, please go out to see for yourself. Also maybe take into account, the bloated website is not the only thing using the device connection. Messager messages syncing in the background, ..
  - whstl 1y ago
    I can take you for a ride in the subway I use to commute to work, where internet is sluggish for a section of it. I can also show you how slow it is when I visit the countryside and the connection is not good. Or when I take a very crowded train to another city/country and have to share the wi-fi while traveling in a non-metropolitan area. Or when I run out of pre-paid credits and I get bumped into low speed mode and the provider's page takes several minutes to load. I don't even know why I answer to this. Because for sure this is all my fault and I'm the one "holding it wrong".
    - xnorswap 1y ago
politelemon 1y ago
I can attest to the differences mentioned, having visited in many cities around the world. Assuming your own local performance reflects that of the rest of the world is not accurate.

lorenstewart 1y ago

I don't really know what to say except that you're wrong here. There are many studies out there about loading time affecting conversions/sales. I link to the most recent study done by Speed Curve about the damage slow loading apps do to business metrics. Not wanting to believe something is very different from the thing being untrue. The differences between 13kB and 500kB are quite real and quite measurable.

lorenstewart 1y ago
Related: 3G === spotty 4G (and you know from your own experience this is true)

mcintyre1994 1y ago

In the summary at the top they also use a different smallest compressed size: "The real differentiator? Bundle sizes range from 28.8 kB to 176.3 kB compressed." That's why I stopped reading at your first quote, it didn't fit with the summary and there's no point reading a bunch of numbers and wondering which are made up.

lorenstewart 1y ago
There are two measurements: the size of the index page, the size of the board page. You are quoting measurements of the board page.

lukan 1y ago

Hm. Have you ever spend time away from the city? The article cites also the use case, real estate agents. They also struggle at times with bad connection issues it seems. And with a bad connection average websites do take seconds to load for me.

xnorswap 1y ago
Questioning if I spend time away from a city is patronising nonsense. Websites taking seconds to load in bad mobile reception is usually down to latency and handshaking, not raw bandwidth. Show me a real world example of a single payload 500kB taking seconds longer than 13kB. It's not realistic.
- lukan 1y ago
  I question it, because I live somewhere rural with bad connection and travel frequently around europe, where I often experience bad connection outside of cities, so I do value lightweight pages like the article authors propose as a metric. Heavy weight pages I don't even bother trying to load in some areas. "Show me a real world example of a single payload 500kB taking seconds longer than 13kB. It's not realistic." And my only comment towards this is, please go out to see for yourself. Also maybe take into account, the bloated website is not the only thing using the device connection. Messager messages syncing in the background, ..
- whstl 1y ago
  I can take you for a ride in the subway I use to commute to work, where internet is sluggish for a section of it. I can also show you how slow it is when I visit the countryside and the connection is not good. Or when I take a very crowded train to another city/country and have to share the wi-fi while traveling in a non-metropolitan area. Or when I run out of pre-paid credits and I get bumped into low speed mode and the provider's page takes several minutes to load. I don't even know why I answer to this. Because for sure this is all my fault and I'm the one "holding it wrong".
  - xnorswap 1y ago

politelemon 1y ago

I can attest to the differences mentioned, having visited in many cities around the world. Assuming your own local performance reflects that of the rest of the world is not accurate.