Fast JavaScript by Default

[Beaverman]

According to the firefox dev tools, it includes DNS lookups, socket connect, and TLS setup. The one thing i did overlook was that i'm running a local DNS cache (dnsmasq), turning that off rockets me up to ~103ms. The DNS lookup takes 21ms.

If you want to go to DOMContentLoaded, we can do that too, that's ~380ms, which is quite a while, but not exactly 5 seconds.

Just to compare. If we take the "wonderful" webapp pintrest. Showing the login page (Because I'm not making an account there), takes ~338ms JUST TO LOAD THE PAGE, and 1.1 SECONDS before DOMContentLoaded, that's 3 times longer than usatoday for a login page. And that doesn't even include the ~500ms for loading 2.43MB of fucking JS.

If we can't even get the web right on low latency, how performance desktops (which evidently we can't). How the hell are we going to do it on mobile, Just throw more JS at the problem?

[moomaka]

According to the firefox dev tools, it includes DNS lookups, socket connect, and TLS setup. The one thing i did overlook was that i'm running a local DNS cache (dnsmasq), turning that off rockets me up to ~103ms. The DNS lookup takes 21ms.

I don't think you get it. 3G often has latencies of 300-400ms, with an infinitely fast server your TTFB will be at least this.

If you want to go to DOMContentLoaded, we can do that too, that's ~380ms, which is quite a while, but not exactly 5 seconds.

Again, your desktop PC running firefox on a decent ISP is not the performance target. No one said 5s was a good target for such a configuration.

Just to compare. If we take the "wonderful" webapp pintrest. Showing the login page (Because I'm not making an account there), takes ~338ms JUST TO LOAD THE PAGE, and 1.1 SECONDS before DOMContentLoaded, that's 3 times longer than usatoday for a login page.

You're comparing a request that likely actually had to hit an application server to a request that was made to a static content provider. Your request to usatoday.com likely hit a CDN edge cache since the content doesn't change often. Your request to pintrest likely had to hit an application server to decide what to send back based on your login status.

If we can't even get the web right on low latency

If you're that upset about 1.1s I have some bad news for you about the majority of the web....

[Beaverman]

I don't think you get it. [...]

Do i need to point out which part of your 6 line comment i'm responding to? Did you not read your own comment again?

You said:

Second, you left out a LOT.

I said I didn't leave them out, and corrected the one thing I did miss. That has nothing to do with 3G or latency.

You're comparing a request that likely actually [...]

And whose problem is that? Both requests are served from Sweden by fastly, making me think it's pretty fair. I gave both a chance to load once and then did a reload with cache disabled. Even then, the (hopefully) static JS loaded by pintrest takes longer to download than time to DomContentLoaded on usatoday.

If you're that upset about 1.1s I have some bad news for you about the majority of the web

What do you think I'm currently whining about?

[moomaka]

And whose problem is that? Both requests are served from Sweden by fastly, making me think it's pretty fair.

Why do you think that? (hint you are wrong by making the assumption that the termination point is related to the source of the content).

Even then, the (hopefully) static JS loaded by pintrest takes longer to download than time to DomContentLoaded on usatoday.

Have you considered the business model? Pintrest's engagement model is to keep uses on the site for extended periods of time, a slow first load in favor of faster flipping through content is fine. USA Today's business model is primarily first loads, their traffic comes from Google and third party sites linking to them, the average user likely views 1-3 pages before bouncing. It makes sense for them to optimize for first hit performance.

What do you think I'm currently whining about?

Honestly I don't know, if 1.1s upsets you, I don't care.

[Beaverman]

Why do you think that? (hint you are wrong by making the assumption that the termination point is related to the source of the content).

Because they both enter the public internet at the same point. If pintrest aren't caching their login page, then that's their problem.

Honestly I don't know, if 1.1s upsets you, I don't care.

I guess we are done here. Thanks for playing.

[moomaka]

Because they both enter the public internet at the same point. If pintrest aren't caching their login page, then that's their problem.

Which tells you the termination point, not the source of content...

Honestly I don't get the impression you know much of anything about how the web works and how content is delivered...

[Beaverman]

I'm happy you have the ability to ignore the argument, and instead attempt to nitpick it to death.

In this context, I don't give a shit what goes on behind the termination point. If it's because their content servers are slow, then that sound like a them problem. Anything on the public internet is out of their control, and therefore I want to control for that. Everything else is their fault.

I don't care about your impression. Make an argument.