"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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Slack should not eat 10 GB of RAM, but if you make bad faith comparisons like that, you're worse than actual luddites. Luddites had good points on labor versus capital, you're just pointlessly whining
6 replies 29 retweets 226 likesShow this thread -
I'm sorry, my patience for lack of even a back-of-the-envelope validation of tech nostalgia rants runs very low these days
9 replies 4 retweets 118 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @whitequark
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoNiMad
I've yet to see a website that downloads over 150 MB of html/css/js...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NoNiMad
How much of those 30 MB are things like high-resolution image assets and CJK-enabled fonts?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NoNiMad
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
"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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
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
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.