[troupo]

> I am sure that they will come back and optimize, but tbh this is not the priority with a new site where the hits will top out at ~ 10k / hour.

You don't need to "come back and optimize" if you don't start with needing a progress indicator for a "transform: scale" animation to display a single static download link. The number of hits is not relevant.

Neither do you need to do three separate fetch requests for static plain text examples that you then laboriously dump into the DOM by creating dummy elements, putting content in there, then looking up and cloning `code` tags to then dump those code tags on the page.

[port11]

I think you might have an issue with modern frontend practices. That's okay, but there's a disproportionate amount of hate towards Ruby's redesigned page. And it looks perfectly fine. HTPP/2 parallel requests aren't that big a deal, all things considered.

The website looks cool to me, makes me want to try Ruby.

[braiamp]

He doesn't hate Ruby's redesigned page. He is complaining about yet another example of waste of resources that clients have to do because you want your page look "dynamic". Please, make sure and be aware were these comments are being posted, a site that it's both "dynamic" and doesn't require much resources from the client.

[troupo]

This is a page that appeared on HN front page news.

So what do you expect? People ignoring the frankly idiotic choices made that you now defend with "they will come back and optimize it"?

> HTPP/2 parallel requests aren't that big a deal, all things considered.

I literally see a progress counter that is for some reason required to display the most trivial animation to show ... a single static link. On a gigabit connection. All that takes up to two seconds.

On that same connection the same thing happen to three purely three static examples of code that somehow need up to two seconds to appear and to shift the entire content of the page.

Both are especially jarring on mobile.

[port11]

Hmm, I don't see it. The animation loads instantly for me on a cold visit. The examples were already there. I tried it in Orion and things were a bit slower, Firefox too. But still not the multi-second delay, and I'm here on a ~30Mbps copper line with some latency. (Thanks syndicus!)

That said, I've no reason to defend the page. It just didn't strike me as bad, but I can see how others are experiencing a bad page.

[troupo]

Here's mobile experience: https://youtube.com/shorts/LFIQeEL2S0U

The same is on desktop Firefox. For some reason youtube can't process the screencast for that :)