Is it true?
Can g even create a useful website that runs fast?

>>105970580 (OP)
>Is it true?
why do you write like this, it's low credit score engagement bait lingo

>>105970580 (OP)
No. It's nonsense. Also good luck making a page of 14kb. You can't have images.

>>105970613
Why can't you answer the question? You're a JavaScript guy?

>>105970619
Maybe simple SVG?

>>105970619
your bullshit landing page doesn't need 5MB of stock photos

>under 14kB

So no PeepoHug?

>>105970620
>Why can't you answer the question?
web pages don't need javascript or css. everything you need can be done with HTTP headers and server side rendering. the ycombinator site "orange site" (where you got the idea for this thread) works without js

>>105970670
That's not what I asked

>>105970634
SVG could potentially work and I still have my doubts. This 14kb rule makes zero sense for web development. Just let the server and browser engines do their thing. This is only really useful for other goals, like online gaming, or remote control, things like that.

>>105970649
Try making a 14kb image and see how far you go. You could maybe do it when screens had 320x240 resolution, but with minimum 1080p resolution, no way.

>>105970699
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44613625
>is it true [that websites should be under 14kB]
it's arbitrary, sites should be small but not 14kB but the article you reference goes into
>Each TCP packet uses 40 bytes in its header — 16 bytes for IP and an additional 24 bytes for TCP
>That leaves 1460 bytes per TCP packet. 10 x 1460 = 14600 bytes or roughly 14kB!
which doesn't matter because most "useful" sites aren't transferring data between the stock market and carrier hotels
>can you make a useful site that runs fast
yes, now stop recycling shit from ycombinator, if you wanted to discuss that article post there

What if I want to make a website to promote my new game and post screenshots and videos?

>>105970580 (OP)
Look faggot. Here is the issue with the modern web: You dumb fucks use a million frameworks and pull them in from all over the place to do simple shit like render fonts. Then your shit is broken in any browser that isn't loading 3rd party javascript. Any new web page I visit is an exercise in frustration as I enable one script to attempt to get it to render text+images while 25 more suddenly appear in the list. Usually from the same handful of places I don't want communicating with my PC in the first place.

Back when we knew what we were doing the web worked fine on all devices including those that could only accept basic HTML. Since we actually tested our shit and javascript (in the form of "AJAX" in those days) wasn't a hard requirement to use the actual page. The page would load fine for lurking even if javascript was disabled in their browser. Then it'd let you POST without it as well by causing a simple page reload+redirect. Or you could get updates or POST without the reload if you allowed our very simple and easy to audit javascript code to run.

It was really easy to write this stuff too. xhtml and CSS combined with something on what you idiots now call the "backend" (usually perl or php. Some fags shilled shit like ruby hard but everyone ignored them because they were retarded and it was slow). Then once we had the static page working we might add some dynamic elements here and there were needed. Then we actually tested our shit in all major browser engines including shit like WebTV. It all worked fine even on dial-up. They even said it was revolutionary and called it "Web 2.0".

But at some point I looked away and you dumb faggots showed up that can't into html, can't into javascript, can't into CSS and can't into simple shit like php and perl. Now you need 1,000 frameworks and offsite 3rd party scripts embedded into everything just to render fonts (you shouldn't be pushing your fonts on to end user's device in the first place).

>>105970756
HTML, JavaScript and CSS never worked fine. They're trash technologies glued by spit. It's much easier to do desktop or mobile applications.

>>105970801
Javascript was always shit I'll agree. HTML was fine especially by the time xhtml was standardized. CSS is fine as well. The issue is the W3C is now google's bitch, all progress we made with things like xhtml was thrown away to embed DRM into the web. Then we ended up with an entire generation of code monkeys that can't even properly parse an XML file.

Now if you want to argue we shouldn't have used HTTP for dynamic content that's fine. I agree. But shitting on HTTP+HTML for what it was originally intended for. Which was basically being the world's digital library. Well it's very good at that because that's what the entire protocol was built around.

I was writing HTML and designing websites when your only options was using <tables> and CSS didn't yet exist. I suffered through doing hacky shit to make things work across IE and mozilla shit. I suffered through php during versions 3.x, 4.x, 5.x and later versions when it finally got somewhat unfucked. I did my first dynamic web pages using perl in the cgi-bin.

What we had back then is much better than what we have now. What happened is we did some hacks using AJAX to limp us along and make things better for end users until a proper new protocol could be created and deployed. This never happened. Everyone kept adding hacks on top of our hacks instead. Now we have an entire industry built upon a house of hacks. Which only exists to spy on the end users through the modern cancer known as the "browser engines". It's all spyware and it's all bullshit.

But my point still stands: If you can't write a website in HTML+CSS directly without relying on javascript to do basic functions any webpage should be able to do you have no business calling yourself a "webdev".

Also yes. People shit all over webdevs even back then. But at least those webdevs kind of knew what they were doing. The reason they're all gone now and no longer work on web shit is because everyone moved on to other fun things. Like kernel hacking.

>>105970619
>what is lazy loading media assets

>>105970913
It's something that as nothing do to with the argument. Why?

>>105970580 (OP)
Yeah, I mean, you can make a webpage that just says "benis :DDD" and it will load before you can click on it.

>>105970890
I get you understand the subject and what you're saying is true. I think it's more that every big corpo wants to make web applications, and don't want to deal with HTTP or CSS, and that's when React and pals where born, and that's the most stable web framework ever developed. By that I mean in time span, because many where born and are now dead.

I never liked the webstack even before all these frameworks. It was always a complicated mess in my opinion. Even so I have to deal with it at work. I separate work from hobby though.

>>105970913
That is too advanced for the regular retard like this one: >>105972909

js13kgames.com 13kB vidyaweb

>>105970580 (OP)
what's the best way to do this?
some webpack tool that'll combine the html css and js into 1 file and minify it all and also gzip it?

>>105970738
You don't need more than 256 colors

>>105970913
cool the page finished loading
>start scrolling
>nothing to see
>elements start to jump around

>>105972909
>>105974419
Why are you both pretending to be retarded?

14 megabytes? alright no problem chief we got you

I could get my homepage under this limit but I need to wait until Safari comes out for macOS 26 before I can throw out my 10kb PNG favicon and just use SVG

>>105970666
Not allowed, not because its 1 kb too large but because it's a fucking r*ddit fr*g

>>105974419
Works perfectly for me because you defined the dimensions of the elements server-side to the HTML you serve, so the browser knows the dimensions right away.

>>105970580 (OP)
html, no?

>>105974619
all pepe memes and derivatives are owned by 4chan

>>105973744
make a raw text-only html site then minify it

I’ll make the logo

I did a quick check and the average size for my pages (excluding css, of course) is ~39kb. FUCK.

>>105976797
>~39kb
After Brotli compression?

>>105972956
>I never liked the webstack even before all these frameworks. It was always a complicated mess in my opinion.
Yeah I understand what you mean. I remember in the long ago I was tasked with setting up a forum and they insisted on the most popular one at the time. They'd already paid over $200 for the script. It was called UBB and it was written in perl with no database for storage. Everything was stored as .txt files within the cgi-bin.

I set it up but I couldn't get posting working because of file permissions. The instructions said
>just set every file to 777
I told the sysadmin and he gave me a hard NO (rightfully so). The entire thing was a disaster. We had to set-up another server just for the forum and it was pretty high end at the time. Since if you tried having more than 5 users active at the same time on our usual server it would send the load average way up and consume all the CPU. Plus, with files storing their posts they blocked each other if one thread happened to be particularly active. Now that I think about it .txt files might have been later. I think the first version we used had .html files and the script would hardcode their posts along with the HTML to make up the element the post lived in. Been a long time so I can't remember but I think version 5.x of that software was flat HTML then when they did version 6.x they introduced proper templates. Huge pain to upgrade between them. Then later they tasked me with upgrading everything to the new shiny script they purchased. vBulletin which was php+mySQL database. At least it could handle more than 10 users concurrently without murdering the server.

I knew a lot of people back then that were writing their dynamic and static websites in C. No one really used python either. Everyone said to learn perl because it was more useful. I guess they were right since back then there wasn't a separation of jobs. You had to learn everything from being sysadmin to the entire stack.

>>105976732
I'll set up the SEO operation.

>https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
learn from the master..