Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffhuys | Hacker News Reader

It's not just 2 MB of JS. I'm describing ALL traffic, also the JSONs received, CSS, images, everything.

Besides, we show many charts, and believe me when I say: financial people are PICKY when it comes to chart functionality. It needs to have EVERYTHING or you're not considered serious.

View on HN

It sounds like you're developing a turn-key highly interactive application for a very particular niche of users. It makes sense that for them the tradeoff of downloading 2MB of Javascript makes sense versus enjoying their bells and whistles.

But for the rest of the internet, where users sometimes view your page with decrepit browsers riding on hobbled connections, 2MB is too much. Worrying about these people is not blowing it out of proportion. It's basic human decency.

I think you are mostly describing the difference between a web application and web site. Where lately frameworks for building web applications have been used to build web sites.

Sure, but I think there are devs out there that are making that confusion, and parent comment I responded to seems to not be aware of the difference. You know it's not the guns that kill people, it's the web devs.

Interesting that you think that I'm not aware of the difference, lol. Whatever.

Yes, because you're rebutting to a post about light(er) web components by saying that we're blowing it out of proportion since your specific case with very specific users can work with 2MB of Javascript. You gave no indication that you're aware of other use cases that will benefit from these smaller frameworks, and even though I am aware you can't put in one couple hundred words post everything about your knowledge you showed zero empathy towards web users that are different than yours. Apologies if that's not the case, I still feel like it's a discussion worth having. More so if you agree with my words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com