| I actually don't fully understand how they came to the 150GB conclusion. They write: > Before our jQuery removal refactoring, the bundle file on our most popular content type, article.min.js, was 139kb minified (gzipped 47kb). After our refactor, our jQuery-free code comes in at 50kb (gzipped 15kb). So it sounds like they bundled jquery into article.min.js. But then they go on to write: > This might seem trivial, but when you consider that we have over 5 million pageviews to the article content type in any given 30 days, it translates to roughly 150GB of bandwidth saved. This then indicates that no request to their most popular javascript will be cached by clients, which seems odd. I don't think people typically mean "unique visitors" when they say "pageviews", or? I clicked on ~5 pages on their site and my browser downloaded about 10MB. Their JQuery optimization saved them 30kB. From a bandwidth perspective, it doesn't seem so significant. Edit: Actually I almost get upset when I browse their site. My laptop screen is 1920x1080, and their content doesn't really fit on the screen. I'm thinking about for example the "Dispatches" section on the / page. I can't even see the complete frigging boxes without scrolling. The font size of the header is crazy 150px and then the boxes underneath. Wtf. Now, this blog article reminds me of those from Netflix about how they improved some "blablabla-engine" and then they can't even be bothered to do a somewhat user friendly site. |