3 ms·

This speaks to me. I've been running an autoresearch loop the past couple of days to improve the load time of my various projects' frontends. I've been really,

by jjcm 1mo ago

This speaks to me. I've been running an autoresearch loop the past couple of days to improve the load time of my various projects' frontends. I've been really, really impressed with how effective this is. I went from a 4s load on simulated slow 4g to ~750ms: https://image.non.io/speedup-graphs.webp https://image.non.io/speedup-graphs.webp Side by side vid of the results: https://video.non.io/speedups.mp4 https://video.non.io/speedups.mp4 This was for https://non.io https://non.io, which is something I had purposefully written to be as fast as possible (hand wrote all the comopnents, didnt even use react). I've been considering creating a skill / utility to do this based on learnings from the speedups - would others find this kind of thing useful?

VladVladikoff 1mo ago
> This was for https://non.io https://non.io Maybe hugged but feels really sluggish to me for it is.
- jjcm 1mo ago
  These are the stats I'm seeing: https://image.non.io/7a8adcb1-2a17-4e2c-b213-d0c3e173a1d5.webp https://image.non.io/7a8adcb1-2a17-4e2c-b213-d0c3e173a1d5.we... Should note the server is on USW and I don't have edge servers for it at the moment.
  - VladVladikoff 1mo ago
    https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-non-io/6mtvojtvvy?form_factor=mobile https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-non-io/6mtvojtvvy?f... Quite slow imho
- throwitaway222 1mo ago
  Never visited before and the site was HN load speed. Very fast.
ltbarcly3 1mo ago
Why is it so slow? Like clicking around this is a very simple site, it seems like the fade in and fade out, besides being jarring and annoying, is just adding load time.
arvigeus 1mo ago
Autoresearch is crazy good! Closest thing to “Make this app fast!” we have now.
roncesvalles 1mo ago
>something I had purposefully written to be as fast as possible and then you threw it all away by adding transition animation
abanana 1mo ago
An annoyance: clicking an image transitions the tiny image to a bigger size, then it gets replaced with a larger image file. The result is: the image slides bigger (but blurred), then immediately disappears, and reloads slowly from the top down. It's an annoying flash, and the slide to a bigger size was a waste of time. That seriously needs some optimising. For example: on click, could the bigger image be inserted behind the small one so it's hidden; on load of the bigger image, hide the smaller image; then do the slide-bigger transition with both images together?
ivm 1mo ago
It takes about 6 seconds to get the site fully rendered on MacBook Air 2017 in Chile. HN is slightly above 1 second in comparison.
Flamkuchlo 1mo ago
It loads in 4 seconds for me on a fast landline. And there are plenty of things you did not opimize for. Like making sure certain dimensions are already known to the dom renderer so that the layout doesn't jump around. Or progressive images so that it doesn't just popup suddenly.
ricardobeat 1mo ago
It still feels pretty slow, and I see some low-hanging fruit: - in safari, every image is loaded twice, .heic and .webp - default.png is re-downloaded 31 times, uncached - images below the fold are request immediately, lazy loading would avoid that [1] But most important, you have 229 requests for tiny files being served over HTTP 1.1. Without GZIP. From a pretty slow server - 700ms+ to download the main json data. Bundling your JS, or enabling HTTP2 or QUIC/HTTP3 alone would massively improve performance. If this is the result of days of autoresearch, it's not really anything to celebrate. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Elements/img#loading https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...

by jjcm 1mo ago

VladVladikoff 1mo ago

> This was for https://non.io https://non.io Maybe hugged but feels really sluggish to me for it is.

jjcm 1mo ago
These are the stats I'm seeing: https://image.non.io/7a8adcb1-2a17-4e2c-b213-d0c3e173a1d5.webp https://image.non.io/7a8adcb1-2a17-4e2c-b213-d0c3e173a1d5.we... Should note the server is on USW and I don't have edge servers for it at the moment.
- VladVladikoff 1mo ago
  https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-non-io/6mtvojtvvy?form_factor=mobile https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-non-io/6mtvojtvvy?f... Quite slow imho
throwitaway222 1mo ago
Never visited before and the site was HN load speed. Very fast.

ltbarcly3 1mo ago

Why is it so slow? Like clicking around this is a very simple site, it seems like the fade in and fade out, besides being jarring and annoying, is just adding load time.

arvigeus 1mo ago

Autoresearch is crazy good! Closest thing to “Make this app fast!” we have now.

roncesvalles 1mo ago

>something I had purposefully written to be as fast as possible and then you threw it all away by adding transition animation

abanana 1mo ago

An annoyance: clicking an image transitions the tiny image to a bigger size, then it gets replaced with a larger image file. The result is: the image slides bigger (but blurred), then immediately disappears, and reloads slowly from the top down. It's an annoying flash, and the slide to a bigger size was a waste of time. That seriously needs some optimising. For example: on click, could the bigger image be inserted behind the small one so it's hidden; on load of the bigger image, hide the smaller image; then do the slide-bigger transition with both images together?

ivm 1mo ago

It takes about 6 seconds to get the site fully rendered on MacBook Air 2017 in Chile. HN is slightly above 1 second in comparison.

Flamkuchlo 1mo ago

It loads in 4 seconds for me on a fast landline. And there are plenty of things you did not opimize for. Like making sure certain dimensions are already known to the dom renderer so that the layout doesn't jump around. Or progressive images so that it doesn't just popup suddenly.

ricardobeat 1mo ago

It still feels pretty slow, and I see some low-hanging fruit: - in safari, every image is loaded twice, .heic and .webp - default.png is re-downloaded 31 times, uncached - images below the fold are request immediately, lazy loading would avoid that [1] But most important, you have 229 requests for tiny files being served over HTTP 1.1. Without GZIP. From a pretty slow server - 700ms+ to download the main json data. Bundling your JS, or enabling HTTP2 or QUIC/HTTP3 alone would massively improve performance. If this is the result of days of autoresearch, it's not really anything to celebrate. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Elements/img#loading https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...