News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ember.js 2.0 Released by sbarre on Thursday August 13, 2015 @07:00AM (#10053297)
Acceptable for what? Genuinely curious about what you benchmark it against, and where you draw the line and why.

110k is smaller than a lot of images.

Re:Ember.js 2.0 Released by rimantas on Thursday August 13, 2015 @07:30AM (#10053394)
Acceptable for use in production.
Re:Ember.js 2.0 Released by benihana on Thursday August 13, 2015 @07:39AM (#10053417)
Okay. Thanks.

Acceptable for what use in production?

E.g: is it an internal tool? Is it a landing page? Is it a SPA that has to do a bunch of things before content can get rendered? These considerations have an effect on what is an acceptable webpage weight for most teams.

Re:Ember.js 2.0 Released by rimantas on Thursday August 13, 2015 @10:17AM (#10054357)
For any use in production. Yes, you are right all that must be considered. Still not acceptable.
Re:Ember.js 2.0 Released by iamstef on Thursday August 13, 2015 @11:00AM (#10054685)
Our friends at http://www.bustle.com/, http://vine.co/, and twitch.tv (http://www.twitch.tv/directory/) ... (lots more) have demonstrated this to be acceptable for there needs.

Traditionally those sites may have also consider I am sure they will continue to be happier as the byte size shrinks, but in the interim they are able to deliver what appears to be a great user experience, in-light of your concerns.