Hacker News Reader

Comment by overcast | Hacker News Reader

With the majority of users moving towards mobile, I really think this is an issue, and I've been consciously building projects as lean as possible. Removing bloated jquery libraries was a big one. With native calls like document.querySelectorAll document.querySelector I've found I can 90% get by without it. For the rest, using something like vue.js, and I've taken care of all the dom manipulation, data binding, etc.

View on HN

I lived in $nowheresville, TN for a bit. This drove me insane. Sure, your webapp works great in downtown SF, but try loading it with the spotty connection the rest of the country has, not to mention the rest of the world.

One of the places I worked at had a computer hooked up to a ~800 kbps modem, and would test all their web-pages on that. It was really eye-opening, and I wish more companies would benchmark like that

Chrome network tools has throttling that can simulate really shitty networks, I use that a fair bit.

I really wish more companies cared about their mobile presence. You don't need much, especially since native mobile widgets go so far along towards making web a nice thing. Also, for gods sake allow zooming. I think of that as such a major plus for mobile and yet so many mobile sites disallow it.

How about not using js at all? I think that for the majority of pages it doesn’t add any value.

With the instant gratification generation, not having dynamic content is going to be a tough sell. I will however agree, there is a gross overuse of it.

The funny part about your reply is JS-heavy websites delay instant gratification on slow connections or machines. They can take 10-30 seconds then objects start jumping around as you try to click them.

Whereas a cached static page or templated dynamic loads pretty instantly if it's mostly text content. In a way they understand if it's graphics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com