Re:Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
by sangnoir on Sunday December 04, 2016 @01:21PM
(#13101012)
> It would involve restricting what the new web could do and those restrictions would make things better. We don't need the kitchen sink in every page
Sounds like you want to set a mobile user-agent string. Most sites will avoid serving you the whole 'kitchen sink'.
That's about the reasoning behind amp...
Re:Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
by reitanqild on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:38AM
(#13099656)
Didn't downvote you but I think you fell for the marketing.
Re:Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
by esrauch on Sunday December 04, 2016 @05:13PM
(#13102064)
Did he? The original comment said "It would involve restricting what the new web could do and those restrictions would make things better. We don't need the kitchen sink in every page." which sounds exactly what AMP is doing.
Re:Chrome 55 uses 30% less memory than 54
by colechristensen on Sunday December 04, 2016 @06:05PM
(#13102257)
Meh, I mean, it's in the neighborhood but philosophically unsatisfying.
I want to cut the fat, not add another layer of it on top.
Something like writing a simpler feature-clone (not how it does things but copies the big picture things it does) of postscript with hyperlinks and videos.
I just want to see text, images, and video with light formatting and hyperlinks. This _doesn't_ require hundreds of megabytes of memory. It would involve restricting what the new web could do and those restrictions would make things better. We don't need the kitchen sink in every page.