Inspire the web with just 10K

August 2, 2010 5:21 PM

10k Apart — Fond memories of the 5K Awards resurface with this modern spin on the idea. It’s time to get back to basics — back to optimizing every little byte like your life depends on it. Your challenge? Build a web app in less than 10 kilobytes.
posted by netbros (29 comments total)

my favicon is 4k. That leaves me 6 to go!

I love this idea. I hate large footprint apps or large page weight sites. Honestly, I have high speed access and if a page won't load in a few seconds I am on to the next. I can't wait to see what people come up with.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:25 PM on August 2, 2010

jQuery & Prototype don't count to your 10k limit? I don't know. That's a nice out, but it seems like cheating.
posted by weston at 5:28 PM on August 2, 2010

jQuery & Prototype don't count to your 10k limit?

== bullshit. In one fell swoop they completely undermine their intent.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:35 PM on August 2, 2010

jQuery & Prototype don't count to your 10k limit? I don't know. That's a nice out, but it seems like cheating.

Well, you can use them from a CDN, and if this becomes commonplace enough the files will already be cached on the client. But once you're using these libraries you're no longer "optimizing every little byte".
posted by me & my monkey at 5:41 PM on August 2, 2010

javascript libraries don't count? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

the5k.org ran essentially the same contest, without the boat, back in 2002 when web developers coded uphill both ways.
posted by striatic at 5:42 PM on August 2, 2010 [3 favorites]

In one fell swoop they completely undermine their intent.

I note that the client OS & TCP stack, the browser, the server OS, TCP stack and Apache don't count, either. There's a pretty arbitrary line to be drawn there, sure, but I don't think drawing it at "10k of original work that uses well-established libraries" is a particularly egregious thing.
posted by mhoye at 5:46 PM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

the files will already be cached on the client

This is a bullshit argument for two reasons:

1. If you're running SSL, there is no caching
2. Your JS interpreter still has to execute the code, every single page view

Just because you might not have to download the javascript file remotely doesn't mean it's not wasting processing cycles.

And just to prematurely cut off any bullshit arguments about how it's not really cheating because you need JS libraries to ensure cross-browser compatibility, I say FEH; the contest creators could just as easily pick any modern browser and standardize the contest against it, completely removing the need for a compatibility layer.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:50 PM on August 2, 2010

I note that the client OS & TCP stack, the browser, the server OS, TCP stack and Apache don't count, either.

Show me all the raw Apache calls you have to do in your HTML file. All the raw operating system-level calls you have to put in your HTML file. All the device drivers you have to specify. That's right. You don't, because those run under the stack, not above the app. If you didn't have to include <script/> tags for the jQuery library, that would be one thing. But the libraries are being run on top of the stack, not under it. That's a huge difference.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:57 PM on August 2, 2010

My entry is going to be a 7K installer app for a 3.6GB FPS.
posted by maxwelton at 6:00 PM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Also: http://js1k.qfox.nl/

civil_d - Page views? Fssh! :-)
posted by MeatLightning at 6:01 PM on August 2, 2010

the contest creators could just as easily pick any modern browser and standardize the contest against it, completely removing the need for a compatibility layer.

Yeah, but they DIDN'T, did they? The point of the contest is still to make talented people push against an arbitrary constraint as hard as they can, to impress and delight us. I'm sorry that they didn't set the barriers low enough to make this some kind of crazy web developer version of a demoparty but unfortunately you can't wish this into something it's not, no matter how much cooler your version is! Fucking Metafilter, does nothing make you happy?

Also "optimizing every little byte" is clearly a figure of speech given the nature of web development (I doubt these web apps will have any embedded C), so this guy arbitrarily declares jumping on that phrasing to be dirty pool.
posted by thedaniel at 6:03 PM on August 2, 2010 [3 favorites]

Call me Mr Lawn Maintenance, but I thought the point was undermined when they doubled the allowance from 5 to 10K.
posted by DU at 6:03 PM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Just because you might not have to download the javascript file remotely doesn't mean it's not wasting processing cycles.

No, but in a contest with a size measurement, it's a relevant thing to point out. The contest has no rules about CPU utilization.

And just to prematurely cut off any bullshit arguments about how it's not really cheating because you need JS libraries to ensure cross-browser compatibility, I say FEH; the contest creators could just as easily pick any modern browser and standardize the contest against it, completely removing the need for a compatibility layer.

They could, but that would be dumb. They could, on the other hand, just make you write your own JS, but arguably that would provide less interesting entries, as building plumbing is less interesting than what you can do with the plumbing once it's built.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:10 PM on August 2, 2010

Fucking Metafilter, does nothing make you happy?

Here's a great idea for a contest: build the best car you can for under $5. You have to supply your own paint, but you're free to use a Toyota.

No, that doesn't fucking impress me. Sorry.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:14 PM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]

I am going to build Cuil.
posted by benzenedream at 6:21 PM on August 2, 2010

Bah! Look at all these Web 3.0 nerds singing kumbaya around a 10k HTML campfire. Humbug!

We need more programmers like this guy; he's rocking it old school. He quit his job at Micro$oft (talk about bloatware) so he can code what HE wants to: an Atari 2600 game with no more then 4000 bytes. LIKE WE DID IN THE OLD DAYS!

When men were REAL nerds! And women were REAL nerds, too! And game consoles had REAL faux wood trim!

And we liked it!

(Seriously though, check out the game. Halo meets Atari 2400. Awesome.)
posted by m@f at 6:25 PM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

jQuery & Prototype don't count to your 10k limit?

Yeah, that seems wrong. On the other hand IIRC the 5k allowed Flash.
posted by Artw at 6:44 PM on August 2, 2010

jQuery & Prototype don't count to your 10k limit?

Fortunately we already had essentially the same challenge without CDN libraries so now we can compare the results.
posted by scottreynen at 6:51 PM on August 2, 2010

the contest creators could just as easily pick any modern browser and standardize the contest against it, completely removing the need for a compatibility layer

"We encourage HTML5, and apps must work equally well in IE9 Dev Preview, Firefox and a WebKit browser."
posted by weston at 9:47 PM on August 2, 2010

Not a bad spread there. There's a lot you can do with those without encountering to many cross browser problems.

Is the current IE9 preview supporting CANVAS yet?
posted by Artw at 9:51 PM on August 2, 2010

10k? Luxury! Look at what 4k can do: real-time fractal photorealistic terrain generation.
posted by zsazsa at 11:06 PM on August 2, 2010

real-time fractal photorealistic terrain generation.

Assuming the presence of d3d9_33.dll on your system, I notice. Limited-space intros have been using libraries for years now.
posted by Kalthare at 1:49 AM on August 3, 2010

Is the current IE9 preview supporting CANVAS yet?

Yes.
posted by yerfatma at 5:56 AM on August 3, 2010

This one meets every possible constraint.
posted by vanar sena at 8:30 AM on August 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

So, ah, which MVC framework would you guys use for this?
posted by dubitable at 2:16 PM on August 4, 2010

Is the current IE9 preview supporting CANVAS yet?

Yes.

HTML5, Modernized: Fourth IE9 Platform Preview Available for Developers

Man, they are not messing about there. Too bad the final release is so far away, and that it's not for XP.
posted by Artw at 2:30 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

it's not for XP

This is the problem part. There are no small number of people and organizations that are still on Win2k and will be for a while yet. XP isn't going away for at least another 5-10 years. IE8 is going to be the new IE6. It's a big improvement for now, but in 5 years we're going to be wondering why we still have to deal with it.
posted by weston at 3:45 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yup.

Or even worse, it'll shrink down to IE6 numbers, and just hover there, while IE6 remains the same...

Or, horrors, it could eventually sink down below IE6, but not die...
posted by Artw at 3:49 PM on August 4, 2010

JS1k - the 1k Javascript demo contest
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on August 6, 2010