@coldkennels I see a lot of websites like that. I promise you this is the result of a subpar effort by the developer and not the technology. Because JavaScript/HTML is more accessible than, say, C++, many programmers making websites are simply not experienced enough to think of performance.
@analog_cafe Ah! Found it.
This is perhaps the best example/explanation of what I meant by web bloat: https://danluu.com/slow-device/
Edit: another way of thinking about this is my battered old 2008 Macbook still runs AnalogExif and ExifTool without issue. But because of the gradual bloat of browsers, it cannot run any current release of any browser - meaning it cannot run *any* web apps.
This push towards the "browser operating system" is rapidly increasing e-waste.
Edited 98d ago
@coldkennels This is a nice resource, I'll have to look into this more. Part of my job is researching and implementing best performance practices. But as I mentioned earlier, because the web is easier to build for, there are more websites (than apps) built by people with more diverse backgrounds, which means that many of them are lacking.
Flipping the script: this table makes 13MB look bad, but what about Mastodon Web (3.2MB JS/CSS/Docs/XHR) to Mastodon iOS (55.4MB + all future requests)?
@analog_cafe I guess the Mastodon comparison comes down to caching vs. locally stored material. In theory, a one-off download of the bulkiest parts of the whole process that is never/rarely altered is far better allocation of resources than constantly/regularly redownloading the same thing over and over again.
The problem of course - like I acknowledged - is that a lot of "programs"/apps are just containers for a web app anyway. I checked on Sengi, and sure enough, it's "built" in Electron.