> > > > If broadband is frivolous, why aren't we all still using 56K dialup? > >
"...the average Web site...includes...290 KB of JavaScript across 18 different files" -- from this article: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2677720http:// I was going to rant about Nathan's blaming "inefficient programmers" (because in reality most programmers are mediocre at best, just like most drivers, but *gasp* no one would EVER admit that their code/driving is mediocre, we're all superstars, amiright?) butI'd rather point blame at the demand for frivolous feature-rich websites. In the past few years, my experience with frameworks, JS interactivity libs (social plugins, content animation), Google fonts, video clips, connectivity APIs (proprietary like Twitter or Slack, or generic like Zapier or ITTT), advertising, and the feverish growth of site analytics means just the baseline load for surfing a single page (even with caching) is growing faster than MFC circa 1995. Its not inefficiency, it is demand for dumb features. And sometimes for no good reason other than just proof of concept (I'm looking at you http://chat.meatspac.es or thedailybeast.com's infinite scroll with %complete bars). JS/CSS minification? Lol. Even external inclusion of ads or analytics is crazy: I have Ghostery and AdBlock running and HuffPo.com tries to load 25 ads & analytics, vox.com 18, and buzzfeed.com 17. I've seen totals as high as 50 combined. Ugh. My intertoobz can't handle it, captain. > _______________________________________________ > dorkbotpdx-blabber mailing list > [email protected] > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/dorkbotpdx-blabber >
_______________________________________________ dorkbotpdx-blabber mailing list [email protected] http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/dorkbotpdx-blabber
