From HN comments: "Gemini sites load so fast, it's a little crazy". Not at all, what's crazy is that we've come to accept as normal that downloading O(1000) words of text that we actually care about reading takes long enough to notice and sometimes might make your laptop fan spin up a little - in 2020!
I feel like I am quoting Maciej Cegłowski's "The Website Obesity Crisis" every other week at this point, but it's such a super-condensed source of white-hot truth and insight that I don't feel bad:
"Let’s commit to the idea that as computers get faster, and as networks get faster, the web should also get faster."
This is the most obvious and natural idea in the world, but somehow it's a genuinely radical position. I think the battle is lost on the web, but if you start again and only put in what you need you just arrive by default at a situation of what feels like breakneck speed.
@solderpunk Sure, a typical 90s website is quite snappy with modern networks and computers. It is also rather ugly. The question that should be asked is, what is an acceptable load time? Let's say 100 ms is deemed fast enough. A speed-up to 10 ms would then be of little benefit. The extra capacity might be better spent making the page better in some other way. The trouble with too many websites is that they take seconds to load, not that they are larger per se.
It's true that you can take this principle to extremes and insist that an ugly, hard to navigate website remain exactly as ugly and hard to navigate as it is so that it loads in 0.1 ms instead of 1 ms, even though this is not a perceptible difference.
But I think that was has actually happened so far has been so far away from that extreme that I still feel comfortable endorsing the general philosophy.
A lot of what's added on top of a website to differentiate it from a typical 90s website has nothing to do with aesthetics or readability or usability, but instead to do with advertising or surveillance or influencing/hijacking mood/attention. Some of it *does* have to do with aesthetics or readability or usability, but isn't done proportionately. Of course this stuff is hard to quantify, but speaking loosely, making a website 100 times "fatter" (filesize, rendering time) to make it 10 times "nicer" is a bad trade off.
I could go on but my point is we came up with truckloads of crap even worse than in the 90s.
I went to a webdev meetup of a local company once to get a better understanding of development outside my domain. That’s where I first realised that all this framework/dependency/cruft-hole is so complex, that there are package managers built solely for the purpose of dealing with it. Told me a lot about the state of webdev.
masto instance for the tildeverse