Web Developement

Why sites of big corporations are so heavy on resources and unoptimized? It is like they feel obliged to load your CPU to 100% and eat up all memory.

And it is not like they are doing something spectacular - just displaying a some text with images. In really annoying cases they start autoplaying some video with very load sound, so everyone in the office will know that you visited that shitty site and you will feel embraced.

>>1
They offshore development. Offshored bullshit is both expensive and terrible quality. It's also high risk, low reward. Typical big bussiness bullshit.

the modern internet sucks all around

HTTPS/2 means we don't have to optimize websites anymore.

>>5
Especially if they're Node.js

>>1
They don't care about the users, unless it starts to cost them in some way.

>>1

This >>3 and also they're into management hell.

1. "Tell 400 a month Indian guy Bob from marketing wants this video popup with our fantastic discount programme."
2. "Tell 400 a month Indian guy Paul from business development needs this in the home page."
3. Indian guy dead in bike crash, new Indian guy doesn't do jQuery but Angular, so we add both and keep working. Hey, it's 400 a month, fantastic idea and we've offshored all responsibility.
4. "Tell new 400 a month Indian guy legal needs EU cookie spam with preferences and other 50 KB worth of shit."
5. "Tell new 400 a month Indian guy company policy is now to make all backgrounds animated because the CEO's son did it."
...

>>8
So what I mean by this is that there's no single thinking head behind what the experience should be like, just a dozen departments throwing lump of shit over lump of shit, and random underpaid offshored people who couldn't give a shit and got recruited out of temple beggars and trained for 2 months on EXPERT WEB DEVELOPMENT doing whatever they can.

>>9
Can't they hire a professional printing expert and use something like TeX to lay the page out? I'm sure a professional could tell them that cluttering the page with noise doesn't help transmitting the marketing message, and in fact simple ads look the best.

>>10
Corporation managers tend not to listen to smart people. Only very few in very innovatove companies may do that.

>>11
I wish I had the edit feature one of you fags have

>>12
Admin is too lazy to expose it as a button :(

Admin-san, how can we use the edit feature?

http://fabiensanglard.net/bloated/index.html
A computer this powerful should be able to render any web-page gracefully. It used to do the job correctly a few years ago. It can't anymore even though it doesn't look like the new content is doing much more than it used to.

I took a look at my own website and realized I was also guilty. The homepage requires 23 HTTP requests. It weighs 1.5 MiB and takes 800 milliseconds to load. All that to show six images and a banner. If you scroll down all the way to the bottom, your browser will have transfered 5.6 MiB while performing 78 HTTP requests. How did I end up building this crap?

For every better, faster, energy-efficient CPU/Storage/RAM element produced by hardware designers it seems there are ten programmers ready to add a hundred features. In programming like in every day life, incremental degradation makes it surprisingly easy to over-consume available resources.

>>14
by reading the faq page

>>16
HAHAHAHA, we can edit for real!

I thought that was just some fag using BBCode to troll us into believing he could edit poasts.

Hahaha.

>>17
That is Jewish conspiracy. Jews make you believe posts can be edited.

>>18
The goyim know! Shut it down!

Makes you wonder what other bullshit they'll come up with in the years to come. Bloated pages and poor privacy are intended to deter dissidents and wrongthinkers. They don't want you to be able to participate in their society. It's rooted in hatred.

It's compound.

Web development is a massive kludge, pop programmers took a non-stateful system and hacked it into a stateful one. The corporate driving force is the bottom line, features > optimisation. Many web devs love shiny things, suits like looking at shiny things, cache hides their performance issues. New features are hardly ever judged by their performance impact. Optimisation is usually a rare afterthought, maybe one heroic dev will give it a shot once a year in your typical outfit.

conspire against my dubs

>>20 what other bullshit they'll come up with
Closed source web powered by WebAssembly,WebGL3(Vulkanic) and render on canvas. AI will be adblocking ads on the rendered bitmaps. Browsers will finally transition to "thin client" Operating Systems.
You can already imagine the hardware requirements.

>>23
Good thing single threaded CPU performance increases flatlined at around 2006-2008.

Thank you physics!

>>23
Thin OS is not that bad. It kills Windows. This is why Microsoft tried to sabotage the web so many times, yet thankfully they failed.

Who gives a fuck about hardware requirements? Are you that poor? A 10 year old PC is still good enough if it didn't suck the day you bought it.

>>24
I'm very thankful for that. It means newer Windows, Android and enterprise shit can take more memory but at least not become that slow CPU-wise.

>>24
The future web would be multi-threaded, even today you can see it in webWorkers parallelism and multi-process tech that splits webpages across cores.

>>26
In most parallel workloads we usually have a sequential stage, thats the bottle neck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vWiSaXQmqM&t=15m27s