Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In other news:

In spite of an increase in mobile CPU speed, mobile phone startup time have not improved (in fact they became slower).

In spite of an increase in desktop CPU speed, time taken to open AAA games have not improved.

In spite of an increase in elevator speed, time taken to reach the median floor of an building have not improved.

My point is, "webpage" has evolved the same way as mobile phones, AAA games and buildings - it has more content and features compared to 10 years ago. And there is really no reason or need to making it faster than it is right now (2-3 seconds is a comfortable waiting time for most people).

To put things in perspective:

Time taken to do a bank transfer is now 2-3 seconds of bank website load and a few clicks (still much to improve on) instead of physically visiting a branch / ATM.

Time taken to start editing a word document is now 2-3 seconds of Google Drive load instead of hours of MS Office Word installation.

Time taken to start a video conference is now 2-3 seconds of Zoom/Teams load instead of minutes of Skype installation.




>My point is, "webpage" has evolved the same way as mobile phones, AAA games and buildings - it has more content and features compared to 10 years ago. And there is really no reason or need to making it faster than it is right now (2-3 seconds is a comfortable waiting time for most people).

What features? I don't know anything substantive a site can deliver to me today that it was not capable of 10 years ago. The last major advance in functionality was probably AJAX, but that doesn't inherently require huge slowdowns and was around more than 10 years ago.

The rest of your comparisons are dubious:

>Time taken to do a bank transfer is now 2-3 seconds of bank website load and a few clicks (still much to improve on) instead of physically visiting a branch / ATM.

This is the same class of argument as saying that (per Scott Adams), "yeah 40 mph may seems like a bad top speed for a sports car, but you have to compare it hopping". (Or the sports cars of 1910). Yes, bank sites are faster than going to ATM. Are they faster than bank sites 20 years ago? Not in my experience.

>Time taken to start editing a word document is now 2-3 seconds of Google Drive load instead of hours of MS Office Word installation.

Also not comparable: you pay the installation MS Word time-cost once, and then all future ones are near instant. (Also applies to your Skype installation example.)


> What features? I don't know anything substantive a site can deliver to me today that it was not capable of 10 years ago. The last major advance in functionality was probably AJAX, but that doesn't inherently require huge slowdowns and was around more than 10 years ago.

And.... Hacker News just in time for the rescue:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24054382


Okay, a site that was announced less than 24 hours ago. That's not what a typical site looks like that demonstrates your claim that most of these bloated sites are only bloated to provide advanced functionality that they can't otherwise. Did Buzzfeed or the typical news site just start offering video editing?


This hipster atttiude of replacing proper software with barely functional webapps really gets on my nerves.

People use and will continue using Skype and especially MS Office. It is much more functional that gSuite alternatives and moving people to castrated and slow webapps is not progress.


Ok great. You've made your choice and I wish you all the best.

I will continue to use, and improve on those "slow web apps".




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

Search: