"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 …
hang on. 10 MB of minified JS is a lot of code, so it's fair to compare it to a comparably complex offline app. it'll take a bit to download and compile, but apks don't start instantly either, right? am I missing something that makes webapps much worse in this context?
-
-
Most of that 10MB is usually analytics or poorly optimised usage of multiple JS frameworks.
@nikitonsky's blog post itself was 15.46MB before he optimised it to 730KB once people pointed it out. -
But of course that optimisation was done quietly without an addendum to the blog post or any kind of analysis of how that 15MB blog post happened in the first place because that's harder than writing a shallow rant. Maybe I should write a rant about lazy misleading rants.
-
incredible. i rest my case
-
In the interest of not being completely negative, one good effect of this blog post has been that people are at least talking about this very real problem. The next step is talking about it in a descriptive and analytical way and figuring out processes to fix it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
10Mb is still 6Mb more than an Android instant app. And I find Android apps bloated...

-
I've said "on the order of" 10 MB, i.e. within an order of magnitude, not literally 10 MB. you can't make broad comparisons like that and simultaneously consider importance of minor variation
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.