Notices by Nolan (nolan@toot.cafe), page 23

@strypey Are you running version 0.14.0? Check the About page in the settings. Refresh until you see it.

@severak According to WebPageTest, the Pinafore homepage loads 133kB of compressed JS and 117kB of uncompressed (that may be a bug, or may be due to the JS being split into multiple files and thus harder for brotli to optimize) https://www.webpagetest.org/result/181212_NH_6efa6714a3b604dbad24c357cca4e8e1/1/breakdown/

@severak Pinafore has like 650kB of (uncompressed) JS total because it's using SvelteJS. https://pinafore.social/report.html And that's total JS across the entire site; each page only loads a subset of that. Also I spent a lot of time optimizing dependencies, layout, etc. :)

I've said it before, but if we could run modern browsers (which have developed optimizations to make slow sites faster) on the web of 2010, that baby would *scream*. The web is not living up to its true potential.

"JavaScript growth and third parties" by Steve Souders https://speedcurve.com/blog/javascript-growth/

"JavaScript is the main cause for making websites slow. [Compared to 7 years ago, ] 1st-party JS doubled from 53 KB to 106 KB. 3rd-party JS octupled (!) from 32 KB to 258 KB."

What's most remarkable is that this happened even with the rise of bundlers, which effectively make 3rd-party JS "look" like 1st-party. In other words, that 1st-party growth is probably node_modules; the 3rd-party growth is ads/trackers/???.

"Intent to ship: CSS shadow parts" https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!msg/blink-dev/DAmfw08GGis/-0OyBbTmBgAJ

This sounds like it would make Custom Elements way more useful. You really need some way to style it from the outside.

@somelaniesaid about:serviceworker-internals in Chrome or about:serviceworkers in Firefox: Wow, that's a lot of service workers

@sivy To be fair, they do follow the normal standards process, and they do reach out to other browser vendors for feedback. They just move very, very fast. :)

@ondra True, the Chrome team makes a great good-faith effort to be transparent. Beyond forums like W3C, WHATWG, and WICG, they're also constantly reaching out to other browser vendors for early feedback. (I saw this firsthand. :))

As for developers, yes, they share some of the blame. Then again, testing and designing for a single browser arguably makes good business sense these days. It's faster and cheaper, and it's where >60% of your customers are.

Of course as an ex-employee of another browser vendor, I'm biased. 😅 But I really do have mixed feelings about Chrome's role. There's no denying that they're improving the web at a breakneck pace, and yet it's at the expense of a truly competitive browser landscape. We know where that road led with IE6. Can't help but feel like we're making a devil's bargain today.

I really believe the Chrome team wants to make the web competitive with native platforms. They have the incentive and resources to do it. I just worry that they're running away with it faster than any other browser vendor can keep up, leading to a browser monoculture and potentially monopoly.

"Our commitment to a more capable web" by Pete LePage https://blog.chromium.org/2018/11/our-commitment-to-more-capable-web.html

"We want to close the capability gap between the web and native and make it easy for developers to build great experiences on the open web. Meanwhile we need to preserve everything that is great about the web."