I am always amazed by new stuff claiming to be faster when the old stuff has worked perfectly since computers and networks were hundreds of times less performant.
It seems to me just like another excuse to add complexity and to create more bloated websites.
The Google homepage is 1.8 MB at initial load for an image, a field and 3 links, all the other major web operators are not better. Seriously, would they do such pages if they cared for being fast?
[EDIT] For those not liking my comment, I should have said that it is in line with the conclusion of the article: "In general, the more resources your site requires, the bigger the performance improvement you’ll see".
I am just questioning the benefit to help the inflation of website traffic, in the end the service is not better, just always heavier (the Google example above is just an illustration).
> It seems to me just like another excuse to add complexity and to create more bloated websites.
Arguably it's the other way around. Web sites were already getting extremely complex and bloated, so new protocols are attempting to restore performance that we've lost. I.E. one of the problems HTTP/2 tries to solve is sending multiple files in parallel over the same connection, to avoid the pitfalls of opening lots of simultaneous TCP sockets. This only became a major concern as web sites added more and more assets.
It's definitely a vicious cycle though. It's reminiscent of what happens with hardware. Better hardware incentivizes inefficient software development, to the point where a modern messaging app might not even be usable on a PC from 2003, despite not having much more functionality than similar apps from the era.
It seems to me just like another excuse to add complexity and to create more bloated websites.
The Google homepage is 1.8 MB at initial load for an image, a field and 3 links, all the other major web operators are not better. Seriously, would they do such pages if they cared for being fast?
[EDIT] For those not liking my comment, I should have said that it is in line with the conclusion of the article: "In general, the more resources your site requires, the bigger the performance improvement you’ll see". I am just questioning the benefit to help the inflation of website traffic, in the end the service is not better, just always heavier (the Google example above is just an illustration).