[Kamshak]

> AMP does not actually make loading any faster

Every AMP link i click on google loads crazy fast. I don't know why the implementation details or google's incentivizing it would make this not count for some reason.

I don't like what amp is doing to the web either but the user experience is really good, pages do load much quicker than your average page and I find myself preferring them a lot over the uncertainty and frustration when you click other links on a bad connection

[dheera]

Less JavaScript bloat, I think. AMP is mostly static content.

Plain HTML and one CSS file (read: one, not five, not ten CSS files) minus the JavaScript bloat would also load insanely fast. It doesn't have to be AMP.

Try the basic HTML verson of Gmail -- it loads about 5-10X faster than the AJAX version.

[untog]

> Less JavaScript bloat, I think. AMP is mostly static content.

That's actually completely untrue. Every AMP component is a web component and requires JavaScript in order to run at all. And many have their own .js file powering it. You literally can't use an <img> tag on an AMP page. You have to use <amp-img>, which has a JS dependency.

OP is right, the primary reason AMP is fast is because Google is preloading the page in the background. AMP pages themselves aren't all that static, or really all that bandwidth efficient.

[ejcx]

You're correct. No js bloat. In order to load Js files it has to be in accordance with the AMP spec and they have a strict list of js you can load.

[manigandham]

Or the site you're already on: HN.