• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Maybe if web pages weren’t also loading like 25mb of javascript it wouldn’t be such a big deal to load 5mb of uncompressed images.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Lol uncompressed images could easily exceed 25 MB for a single image. I’ve seen some egregious cases of js sizes but I’ve never seen 25 MB

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          That was a fucking webpage…?. I am honestly wondering how a browser could even handle that much code…

          I’m gonna say I’ve seen 5 MB uncompressed before but not much more than that if at all. Imo 1 MB is borderline unacceptable for the typical web page.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.devOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            It was an internal system for keep track of several projects. That still used 600MB more javascript than it actually needed for what it ended up doing anyway; purely static pages could’ve done everything needed, except maybe the animated graphics, but the create/edit forms were a fucking pain to even test, because not a single fucking element had an id and the date picker was literally impossible to target with Selenium