"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
-
Replying to @whitequark
Well, I was talking about on-screen keyboard, it doesn’t need smooth scrolling, and it requires 150 Mb _on disk_. I can, too, name things that weight 70 Mb, what does it have to do with anything?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @nikitonsky
I guess this was confusingly phrased, so let's try again. memory footprint of a modern webpage on the order of 100 MB is OK because that's how browsers achieve low input latency. wire footprint of same on the order of 10 MB of JS is OK because the offline applications they…
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @whitequark @nikitonsky
I agree we too often talk about bloat without considering the trade-offs we make, but a payload of 10MB of JS (often compressed, so really more to the parser and compiler) is a UX disaster for median mobile hardware. Apologies if I totally misunderstood you.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @malchata @nikitonsky
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
10Mb is still 6Mb more than an Android instant app. And I find Android apps bloated...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.