[rakshazi]

The ironic part of AMP is that it's heavely relies on js. External js.

For example, you have a lightweight website with size of 140kb for everything (html, CSS, js, images) without AMP. It works blazing fast and you get 100/100 scores on any website speed meter.

But it was not enough for google, because you don't use their super-duper AMP tech.

You known what? Your website doubles in size when you implement AMP, because you must load several additional scripts to make AMP work, and not only size increases, load time (from click on your website link till full render) will increase too, because additional js processing to make AMP work.

The only benefit was preloading and heavely caching by Google, so user feels like website shows instantly.

I "optimized" several lightweight websites with AMP and every time I had exactly one thought in mind - that's useless stuff adds more problems than benefits, except mobile search ranking.

Thanks God now AMP is not mandatory to be in google mobile search top

[esprehn]

Do you have some examples of sites where the regular site is faster than the AMP one?

[rakshazi]

Well, my current project is good example: https://etke.cc

Try to apply AMP to it and see the difference...

[dbbk]

Literally anything that doesn’t use JS and is CDN cached?

[esprehn]

Do you have real world examples of that though? Nearly every real world news, facts, recipe, cooking blog, etc I can find loads huge amounts of JS.

Ex. Here's Snopes: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/210818_BiDcQB_f0db4233292...

For sure a static site is faster than AMP, but I'm pretty sure AMP is faster than most sites regular folks visit on a daily basis.

[lwansbrough]

You’re using one right now.

[esprehn]

For sure hacker news is pretty light weight, but it also seems they didn't feel any pressure to use AMP (and also have historically not cared about SEO).