"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 …
-
-
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 -
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.