• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days 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
        4
        ·
        2 days 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
            1 day 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
              ·
              18 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