5 ms·

The whole thing is 194KB ,a normal TODOmvc demo of your favourite Js framework goes above 250KB . Really Impressive stuff. really motivates to build slimmer we

by mkawia 11y ago

The whole thing is 194KB ,a normal TODOmvc demo of your favourite Js framework goes above 250KB . Really Impressive stuff. really motivates to build slimmer web apps

stephenr 11y ago
I wish more front-end dev's would focus on this.
- lumpypua 11y ago
  I agree, but I'm two months behind on implementing important features. While I can take a week here and there to optimize, my time is best spent delivering business value. Unless you allow performance to genuinely suck (and I don't) slimming down web apps won't help my business make money. You get what current fashionable JS frameworks and build tools give me.
  - vanderZwan 11y ago
    But you're not the one implementing the frameworks. For those, being slim is business value.
  - rmchugh 11y ago
    also, page size is not the biggest performance killer. too many http requests (for example, requests out to CDNs and advertising networks) is a more likely source of problems.
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    As long as your customers are in the vast majority accessing your web apps over non-cellular data connections this makes sense. As more folks are cell-phone-first, ignoring the size of the payload you expect users to accept will increasingly represent a sub-optimal experience.
    - phn 11y ago
      Well, to be fair, celular connections are also getting better.
      - mattlutze 11y ago
        It's not a question of cellular connection quality but of data quantity on a plan.
amelius 11y ago
Very nice. But are you sure it doesn't load things in the background, as needed? In fact, if it didn't do this, I'd be disappointed :)
- bmj 11y ago
  It appears that it is mostly assets and graphics that are being loaded dynamically.
digitalsurgeon 11y ago
amazing that its 194kb and you think this is very small. what world are ver living in that web development has made us so sloppy and inefficient, when MB's of script downloads are considered slim.
- FatalBaboon 11y ago
  Yes, because in 2015 194kb is so incredibly much. Maybe the carriers' are sloppy and inefficient. See, whatever I do, when I access anything web-based on my mobile phone, it is slow. And I live in Paris. It's funny how suposedly the 3G/4G stuff should be fast but in reality it is not, I believe that is mostly because in large areas the access points are overcrowded. In other words, the technology used to access internet is saturated, and developpers should be blamed for having websites >200kb heavy! Who's crazy now?
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    I don't disagree that the main culprit is the carriers, but access points would not be so saturated if websites were smaller.
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  Devtools says that this page is 131KB.
- jscheel 11y ago
  To be fair, 194kb is pretty far from "MB's of script downloads".
lhorie 11y ago
Not all frameworks are bloated though. Mithril, for example, is pretty small[1]. [1]http://tobyzerner.com/mithril/#front-end-performance http://tobyzerner.com/mithril/#front-end-performance

by mkawia 11y ago

The whole thing is 194KB ,a normal TODOmvc demo of your favourite Js framework goes above 250KB . Really Impressive stuff. really motivates to build slimmer web apps

stephenr 11y ago

I wish more front-end dev's would focus on this.

lumpypua 11y ago
I agree, but I'm two months behind on implementing important features. While I can take a week here and there to optimize, my time is best spent delivering business value. Unless you allow performance to genuinely suck (and I don't) slimming down web apps won't help my business make money. You get what current fashionable JS frameworks and build tools give me.
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  But you're not the one implementing the frameworks. For those, being slim is business value.
- rmchugh 11y ago
  also, page size is not the biggest performance killer. too many http requests (for example, requests out to CDNs and advertising networks) is a more likely source of problems.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  As long as your customers are in the vast majority accessing your web apps over non-cellular data connections this makes sense. As more folks are cell-phone-first, ignoring the size of the payload you expect users to accept will increasingly represent a sub-optimal experience.
  - phn 11y ago
    Well, to be fair, celular connections are also getting better.
    - mattlutze 11y ago
      It's not a question of cellular connection quality but of data quantity on a plan.

amelius 11y ago

Very nice. But are you sure it doesn't load things in the background, as needed? In fact, if it didn't do this, I'd be disappointed :)

bmj 11y ago
It appears that it is mostly assets and graphics that are being loaded dynamically.

digitalsurgeon 11y ago

amazing that its 194kb and you think this is very small. what world are ver living in that web development has made us so sloppy and inefficient, when MB's of script downloads are considered slim.

FatalBaboon 11y ago
Yes, because in 2015 194kb is so incredibly much. Maybe the carriers' are sloppy and inefficient. See, whatever I do, when I access anything web-based on my mobile phone, it is slow. And I live in Paris. It's funny how suposedly the 3G/4G stuff should be fast but in reality it is not, I believe that is mostly because in large areas the access points are overcrowded. In other words, the technology used to access internet is saturated, and developpers should be blamed for having websites >200kb heavy! Who's crazy now?
- moron4hire 11y ago
  I don't disagree that the main culprit is the carriers, but access points would not be so saturated if websites were smaller.
steveklabnik 11y ago
Devtools says that this page is 131KB.
jscheel 11y ago
To be fair, 194kb is pretty far from "MB's of script downloads".

lhorie 11y ago

Not all frameworks are bloated though. Mithril, for example, is pretty small[1]. [1]http://tobyzerner.com/mithril/#front-end-performance http://tobyzerner.com/mithril/#front-end-performance