This seems to miss the fact that JS doesn't have to download every time. The CSS and JS files can be fetched from cache. No one's flushing their cache between tweets.
It’s not immediately clear to me what jQuery is doing for Metafilter.
Isn't he one of those overnight mods we took on recently?
The worst sins of the Flash years are coming back with a vengeance, in the form of CSS Frameworks and the magic dollar sign. There has seriously got to be a better way to do this.
Yeah, I'm not sure I get the jQuery hate, other than the fact that it's an easy scapegoat for the growing practice of building full client-side apps in JS and using the page request as the delivery mechanism for the app.
A little voice in my head is telling me that all that cruft on Twitter is intentionally put there to annoy the user into not using a desktop browser as their interface to Twitter.
Bootstrap and jQuery barely take you over 100kb, and are cached between pages. This isn't the problem. … Also, bandwidth isn't as big of a constraint as it once was.
I wish he'd have summarized these in one graphic that had everything on the same scale. At first I thought that Metafilter looked kind of script heavy until I went back and compared it to everything else. Then, not so much.
if I come back and hit it again tomorrow maybe I'll need to grab the big JS files again, though TBH it's questionable how much of a problem that is. … I think the last paragraph of your article there is a leap into crazytown TBH
Is this what it sounds like to be old and out of touch?
I'm a total noob on this, but could this be Twitter conspiring with those that charge on data plans?
I don't know why you'd want to do anything on the server in the first place. The site I'm working on now is going to be entirely client side. In fact, It won't even need a server at all, you could just put static files up on S3.
Think about it though: No server, no scalability issues!
Twitter probably does make a lot better sense as an app-like site updating itself via JSON rather than a pageload based site.
Actually, it's a lot easier for them to monetize browser access than API access through desktop clients. A lot of the work on the browser-based interface has been an attempt to duplicate the functionality of desktop client software inside the browser.
« Older Counting Stars... | Compared to some species, huma... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt