3 ms·
You don't think the web being almost twice as fast is worth it? Really?
by enneff 12y ago
You don't think the web being almost twice as fast is worth it? Really?
- angersock 12y agoTwice as fast, in some cases. I don't think--and again, this is just my opinion--that giving up the simplicity of the protocol that has somehow brought us in the last twenty years from barely functioning text to the modern web is a good idea. I believe that especially given that the big benefits seem predicated on very centralized authorities and large-scale companies. If you're Google or Facebook or Twitter, this is great. If you're anyone else, it's not really a huge win.
- afro88 12y agoWe're not giving up anything (1.1 support will be around for quite some time). The benefits won't be for small site owners, but for end users. At a guess, I'd say at least 60% of my daily web use is to big company sites (facebook, google, twitter, news organisations etc). This will result in a huge speed increase for most end users.
- m_eiman 12y ago30% faster... IF you've got your page split up into 78 requests on 12 different hosts using 1.2 MB. Btw, do they still have the special case handling of headers and whatnot that hardcodes today's implementation details and "best practies" into the protocol we're supposed to use for decades ahead?
- cbsmith 12y ago> 30% faster... IF you've got your page split up into 78 requests on 12 different hosts using 1.2 MB. Take a look at the web page of any company in the content business that is actually trying to make the page pay for itself...
- Nullabillity 12y agoMy understanding of the presentation was that the "78 requests over 12 hosts" thing was a hack that the everyone would benefit from, but only big players could afford, with this just making it free/cheap/default.