Hacker News Reader

Comment by hendry | Hacker News Reader

Mine is faster :) https://github.com/kaihendry/natalian

  X1C3:~$ httping http://natalian.org
  PING natalian.org:80 (/):
  connected to 54.192.159.125:80 (147 bytes), seq=0 time= 91.36 ms
  connected to 54.192.159.123:80 (147 bytes), seq=1 time= 28.63 ms
  ^CGot signal 2
  --- http://natalian.org/ ping statistics ---
  2 connects, 2 ok, 0.00% failed, time 1394ms
  round-trip min/avg/max = 28.6/60.0/91.4 ms
  X1C3:~$ httping http://jacquesmattheij.com/the-fastest-blog-in-the-world
  PING jacquesmattheij.com:80 (/the-fastest-blog-in-the-world):
  connected to 62.129.133.242:80 (329 bytes), seq=0 time=550.05 ms
  connected to 62.129.133.242:80 (329 bytes), seq=1 time=550.08 ms
  ^CGot signal 2
  --- http://jacquesmattheij.com/the-fastest-blog-in-the-world ping statistics ---
  2 connects, 2 ok, 0.00% failed, time 2760ms

View on HN

Your blog is hosted in the US, jaquesm's is in Netherlands. The results from a single machine are not comparable.

It was close. With clean cache (from UK) your blog took 133msec. jacques took 134msec.

But then your css had to load... that was another 104ms. ;)

Pretty awesome.

I don't get it. Mine's pretty stripped down but I still get this: :(

   PING hliyan.github.io:80 (http://hliyan.github.io):
   connected to 103.245.222.133:80 (360 bytes), seq=0 time=525.96 ms 
   connected to 103.245.222.133:80 (360 bytes), seq=1 time=555.35 ms

Edit: Connecting from Sri Lanka though (not via Loon, just our regular old ISPs :)

7 requests, 300K, the other is 2 requests, 90K, mine is 1 request, 49K.

Your site is definitely better than most though.

Also, with respect to the numbers you quoted, those are much more related to how many hops the traffic has to traverse than how efficient your site is.

Thanks! I just remembered. I think I have a web font somewhere in the CSS.

I'm pretty far away from you, you have to discount for the network.

Pretty good though, I think if you inline the CSS you'll win hands down :)

I don't like the idea of having reproduced CSS in each page. style.css should be optimal. :)

It should be, but measurements bear out that it isn't...

Speed isn't everything to me. I love the fact that for example view-source:http://natalian.org/2015/07/06/Bank_secrecy_in_Singapore/ is more readable than most blogs.

Yes, that's what has kept me from minifying the HTML and the CSS, I figured that since gzip is already on on the server the benefit would be minimal anyway. I'll still try it just to see what difference it will make.

It's mind boggling to me, as someone who was first introduced to web development in the days of gopher, that most fresh developers don't adequately understand simplicity, but also believe it's a-ok to glue a bunch of js & css libraries together and call it "good enough".

The first Java version of an internal app we had converted from Progress 4GL used Java Webstart to dynamically load & launch, and because of programmer laziness (and the 93 3rd party Java components they'd included) it literally took 3 minutes to launch. That was the point where the manager -- who was a better programmer than anyone in the team, but who had previously been hands-off -- stepped in and created some rules and instituted code reviews. Still, though, totally insane behavior by so many young web programmers.

Is there that much of a difference between that and telling the browser to download and cache a common CSS file for the site? Assuming the common CSS doesn't have a lot of cruft in it.

Mine is even faster than you.

   PING gotchacode.com:80 (/):
   connected to 104.28.19.6:80 (651 bytes), seq=0 time=540.86 ms
  ^CGot signal 2
   --- http://gotchacode.com/ ping statistics ---
   1 connects, 1 ok, 0.00% failed, time 1259ms
   round-trip min/avg/max = 540.9/540.9/540.9 ms

Not even close, 9 requests, 145 kilobytes, total time 300 ms. You're loading 3 css files and 5 files related to fonts.

But not as bad as most, so there's hope :)

  robertsky$ ping localhost
  PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
  64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.051 ms
  64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms
  64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.049 ms

yep... looks right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com