3 ms·

> Without looking You risk being wrong this way. Your #1 is OK, but #2 is false: there's no database (in the sense of RDBMS or NoSQL) behind HN. It's just plai

> Without looking You risk being wrong this way. Your #1 is OK, but #2 is false: there's no database (in the sense of RDBMS or NoSQL) behind HN. It's just plain files on disk. Which, of course, makes fetching data blazingly fast, thanks to how filesystems are already handled and cached by the OS. Anyway, I long suspected that "gzip and cache the hell out of your site" is not the best way to go about optimizing websites. From my experience websites come in two flavours: tiny with no need for optimization at all and huge, where you need to optimize everything and you know it's not going to be enough unless you're willing to rewrite some code in C.

justwannasing 11y ago
You risk being wrong this way. Unless you are involved in the site and can testify to that. In any case, the page could be, or should be, cached in some form, either on the server or with the browser. Which makes me wonder with your second paragraph. gzipping and caching are the easiest and one of several ways to optimize the downloading of a web page. Server side code written in C plays no part in that except if the pages are created on the fly and anything else really does slow down delivery of the page; that is, page creation takes longer than 80ms or so, but a properly coded site won't let that happen if it can be helped. And after running my own web dev business for 11 years, I didn't have to look at anything to determine any of that.