Compare these two sites. Site B is a clone of A.
A:
view-source:https://lou.lt
>Angular-material.css
>style.css
>angular-animate.min.js
>angular-aria.min.js
>socket.io.js
>angular-animate.js
>angular.audio.js
>scrollglue.js
>lz-string.min.js
>flood-detector.js
>/js/main.min.js
672K minified (Does not include images etc)
B:
view-source:https://loult.family
>style.css
>script.js
28K non minified (Does not include images etc)
Explain to me again why we js libraries are a good idea?
bumpo
>>54957540
A lot of people who program Javascript don't really know it. They prefer to use a bunch of libraries that give them what they want instead of writing a left-padding function for themselves. Plus, the amount of files for the first site is going to affect loading times, especially without HTTP2. It seems like they're using a package manager already, I don't see how they couldn't minify it into one file as well.
>>54957540
They both suck.
The first one is more polished in terms of UI, but it's the same old boring material design.
The second one looks like it was made in 2003.
>>54958817
>The second one looks like it was made in 2003.
How is that a complaint?
You're on a website that looks like it was designed in 1998.
>>54958927
>designed in 1998
Don't put form over function!
Websites should be as small as possible, the size of the page (in kB) even affects the SEO score.
>>54957540
>Explain to me again why we js libraries are a good idea?
The same reason why any other language uses libraries:
to write less of your own code and use more of 3rd party tested code which saves time and money
And in case of JS additional reason that browsers use different APIs (thanks to faggots in M$) so you need a library like jQuery (or jQuery-lite which is built-in Angular) to cover this differences.
>>54959983
>Websites should be as small as possible
Of course they should be, if you're paid enough to do so.
>the size of the page (in kB) even affects the SEO score.
source?
>>54959983
>Websites should be as small as possible
>mfw i recently made a new website
>mfw i went through all the effort to create a .webp image alternative for all chrome users that reduces the file size of of image from 200 KB to 100 KB
>mfw i added a 350 Kbit/s .ogg file with a size of 20 MB
>>54962745
Don't listen to one extreme (everything in the browser! concatenate and bundle it all up into a 5MB blackbox! who cares computers are fast now) or the other (PLAIN HTML IS GOOD ENOUGH ON MY TERMINAL BROWSER WHAT ABOUT 56K USERS BACK IN MY DAY UPHILL IN THE SNOW GET OFF MY LAWN)
The truth lies somewhere inbetween, do what makes sense. 20MB ogg is not unreasonable at all go measure some videos embedded in websites for comparison
god bless
>>54962812
hey thanks mate. i only uploaded it in higher quality because im an audiophile anyway
