15 comments

  • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, 7 years ago

    The problem with this post and similar rants is that their authors assume that there is only one web.

    Sure, there's the New York Times and other content sites. But there's also complex web apps, Chrome experiments, CoDrops demos, and more.

    I feel like the "think about performance!" people often want to take us back to a mythical golden age when the web was mostly static content, basically a fancy way to stream PDFs over the internet.

    Now if websites are getting heavier and slower, that's definitely a bad thing. But it's also an understandable trade-off for all the amazing things the web is now able to do.

    Just give us a couple more years to figure out how to keep doing those cool things just without the added performance cost. But in the meantime, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    15 points
    • Colm TuiteColm Tuite, 7 years ago

      It's usually an unnecessary trade-off though? Ok, not for Chrome experiments but lots of other "cool things" can be achieved without a ton of added performance cost - they just often aren't.

      One common reason I see for that is that it's often a trade-off between added performance cost or added business cost. A lot of companies choose the added performance cost. I think that's usually short-sighted though.

      1 point
      • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, 7 years ago

        Well from the point of view of someone who's made a career out of blogging about browser performance and optimization, these problems all seem easily solvable.

        But for a regular developer working under pressure with limited resources, being able to rely on jQuery instead of writing something from scratch is a huge time-saver. And you can't fault a company for using their resources the best they can.

        I'm coming at this from an entirely different perspective since I work with Meteor, which requires loading a big chunk of framework code to do anything at all, even display "hello world" on screen.

        But then again, that big chunk of code makes it possible to single-handedly build rich and complex web apps in days instead of months.

        Articles like this one just conveniently overlook the benefits we get from using "tools" and instead only focus on the downsides. So I find them a bit disingenuous.

        3 points
  • vadim mikhnovvadim mikhnov, 7 years ago

    Site is sponsored by modern.ie and Adobe TypeKit? Loads 5 js files and 3 stylesheets (one external for each render-blocking shit)? Not recognizes mobile devices in anyway and uses 3 pixel font size for them? No scoped stuff for faster loading at all? What, compression is turned off? Nothing is minified and images aren't compressed too? Finally it looks ugly as hell (and not because of the lack of “tools” usage). Can't stop laughing, sorry. Tools aren't the problem, mindless usage of stuff is a problem. Bad design is a problem. Awful code is a problem. Tools aren't.

    8 points
    • Ed AdamsEd Adams, 7 years ago

      I see your point, but the piece of the article to which you refer is quoted from Daring Fireball, which doesn't suffer from those problems.

      Still, it's much easier to talk about web performance than it is to have good web performance, so... yeah.

      2 points
      • vadim mikhnovvadim mikhnov, 7 years ago

        First part was a stupid rant, couldn't hold myself. Anyway, as I said: because of someone (or a lot of someones) using the tool improperly author is eager to blame the tool rather than practitioner of bad code. And that brings me back to the irony of imperfect site where said article resides.

        1 point
    • Noah StokesNoah Stokes, 7 years ago

      @ichik – ppk has been around as an invaluable resource to web developers for 17 years. I'm guess by your remarks that you haven't been around that long, otherwise you would have known this. Perhaps next time you should show some respect to your elders.

      1 point
      • vadim mikhnovvadim mikhnov, 7 years ago

        You couldn't be more wrong, while my career in web design is two or three years short of Koch's, I've familiar with what he has done and is doing. But being around for a lot of time doesn't give you an excuse to deny common sense. Blaming tools and not people who misuse it is plainly illogical.

        2 points
  • Jordy van MeerJordy van Meer, almost 7 years ago

    I can't take an article seriously when the website it's on looks like that.

    1 point
  • Mitch Malone, 7 years ago

    pages I link to often don't.

    Most publishers monetize their sites with advertising. This means a stack of javascript calls to third-party ad networks. This is what slows down webpages more than anything else. This is also why publishers love the idea of Facebook Instant Articles. They're fucking instant. It's difficult if not impossible to get that kind of speed on their own website unfortunately. They have a need to monetize (adds slowness) while also a need to provide a good experience.

    1 point
    • Corin EdwardsCorin Edwards, 7 years ago

      I think there is an implication that the misuse of tools, and the resulting bloat, endemic to the advertising industry is responsible for driving people away from that content.

      I fail to see how bloated ad platforms are a necessary evil. A well performing platform is hardly an impossibility.

      0 points
      • Mitch Malone, almost 7 years ago

        I fail to see how bloated ad platforms are a necessary evil. A well performing platform is hardly an impossibility.

        I agree. Sponsored and branded content are new strategies that might require fewer tools but more processes within an organization. But, in general, I think people in digital publishing prefer tools to process. A publisher could hire sales and operations teams to "direct sell" to brands/advertisers only and provide a space on their site/app for that brand content. They can also hire a creative team or build an internal studio to create personalized experiences for these brands (some publishers are already doing this). But this is difficult to scale and costly and slow moving.

        What I'm trying to get at is, it's difficult to separate the business needs from the application of these tools. Sometimes the business itself needs to change (and I personally think they should).

        1 point
    • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, 7 years ago

      They're fucking instant. It's difficult if not impossible to get that kind of speed on their own website unfortunately.

      Largely due to preloading, right?

      0 points