"Windows 95 was 30 MB" is such an ignorant, obnoxious, trite take. a triple buffered framebuffer (which you want for smooth scrolling) for my 4K display is 70 MB in *pixels alone*. Obviously a complete webpage with precomposed textures would take more.https://twitter.com/julienPauli/status/1042113172143067138 …
-
-
I do agree with you about the fact that lots of comparisons or statements are of bad faith, but aren't you mixing memory consumption with size on disk? Because the 70MB pixels frames are in memory, not in the html, css and js files.
-
I've yet to see a website that downloads over 150 MB of html/css/js...
-
150MB clearly not. 30MB is getting closer on heavy apps. Aren't you using a little bit of bad faith as well not admitting that webpages became *a lot* heavier during the last decade and that's the point of these sentences? Loading http://outlook.live.com is 9MB and 228 requests.
-
How much of those 30 MB are things like high-resolution image assets and CJK-enabled fonts?
-
151KB right after clearing cache and before selecting an email. Photo attached (in french, sorry, polices = fonts). 7.5MB in Javascript files... I still understand your point and even agree with it, just wanted to say the article has (sometimes) good points.pic.twitter.com/26FsHvE2P9
-
OK, but now let's compare it to the offline version of Outlook, which is what it is replacing. Let's also compare the gzipped version of JS with machine code, to be fair; machine code is almost uncompressible, JS is almost always sent gzipped. Still a lot?
-
"the offline version" This... is a really good point. Works for a lot of web apps indeed. Having the browser do a lot of the work for us allowed to have more lightweight applications. Thanks for the nice talk! Now that I see the global pov, I'll think again about this.
-
also, browsers can directly support accessibility tools (like screen readers); big companies tend to support those in native applications too, but most other vendors don't bother
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are you mixing things up out of anger ? You're missing the point, and you're making things even more confusing. User has one goal, smooth years ago, sluggish or buggy today. Of course I'm nostalgic when buying a bus ticket at a kiosk today takes 3 whole minutes.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm all for tech nostalgia and love ye olde architectures etc. But attention seeking glib hot takes, less so.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hit the nail on the head there. I notice a considerable amount of people lack basic back-of-the-envelope calculation skills.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
also manual memory management, the theory of GC says that they won't use more than double the memory I'd prefer GC over memory leaks, buffer overflows and use after free any day
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t think you even need to be sorry. Patience is justly reserved for those who might reasonably benefit from its employment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can do smooth scrolling with a double buffer, that sits inside video memory. There's no reason to eat this amount of main memory for the pixels. The fact it's implemented on top of web tech, which is so bloated in the first place is the problem he's describing
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.