[troysk]

> You have less CSS than HN, and hardly any JS. This doesn't add anything to the discussion of if this is easy or hard to do – your site will always have a fast FCP, even if you weren't serving with a CDN.

Your observations reeks of incompetence. Are you seriously comparing a few bytes difference? The site loads more CSS from https://www.troysk.com/stylesheets/style.css

And hardly any JS? Can you even read code?

Many sites use static caching and then load dynamic parts asynchronously. The goal is to provide the end user a usable UI real fast. There is also Fastly and other new caching solutions if you are interested to know more.

> Your site actually has room for improvement on performance. You could likely cut your overall page weight in half (not that it would do much, being default fast).

How does it benefit? Have users reaction rates become faster than 1s on the web? This is a site not a game.

[lelandfe]

> Are you seriously comparing a few bytes difference? The site loads more CSS from https://www.troysk.com/stylesheets/style.css

Setting aside that you're wrong (your style.css is 1.7kB, HN is 2.2kB), that small difference is kind of my point. Discussions of if a quick FCP is easy or not should be based on a typical site. Tiny, static portfolio sites ain't that.

> And hardly any JS? Can you even read code?

Your site's entire JS weight is below 50kB.

> How does it benefit? Have users reaction rates become faster than 1s on the web?

Right. That's why I said, "not that it would do much, being default fast"

[troysk]

The numbers are wrong.

[lelandfe]

JS: https://i.imgur.com/C6ir5TL.png

CSS: https://i.imgur.com/sgmlnkF.png

Not sure what you're doing at this point. Are you trying to make the case that your site uses a lot of JS...? The site's entire JS package consists of LoadCSS, some ScrollMagic calls, and a Google Analytics tag.