Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sad that 91kb is considered small.


Heh.

I, for reasons nobody will wonder too hard about, have a downloads folder here with a few hundred Kindlebooks in .azw3 format. While non of them is quite as small as 91kb, many of then are around that 468kb size.

And they're whole goddamned novels that some talented author probably spend a whole year writing, not just single "small" webpages.

The modern web is insane.


~10kb of that are for the client side search library ("lunr") and 50.7kb for that searchs index. So around 2/3 of the whole first load size are "just" for the local search feature. The remaining 30kb split up in ~7kb of additional javascript, 16kb of stylesheets, and 7kb of html (content, markup, inline styles & scripts).

I am surprised by the amount of CSS, 109kb uncompressed but minified is a lot of styles for a rather simple design, but I guess its the "just-the-docs" standard and thus somewhat verbose by being generic.



Never heard of this.... incredible. Thanks to you and the brave makers of websites that just load.


Most websites are like 50mb, my dude.


Incorrect, most are ~2.5 MB; granted, the size has steadily increased over the years. But 50 MB sites are an exception. https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2022/page-weight


Still nearly a half million characters, though.

That's 1:40 on dialup.

Not 50MB, that's not lightweight, which this thread is about.


> Not 50MB, that's not lightweight, which this thread is about.

I'm not sure what you're meaning to say to this but my point was that 50MB is absolutely humongous and so many websites are around that order of magnitude. 91kb is a lot smaller than it could be, even though it's not exactly absolutely small.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: