Less JavaScript bloat, I think. AMP is mostly static content.
Plain HTML and one CSS file (read: one, not five, not ten CSS files) minus the JavaScript bloat would also load insanely fast. It doesn't have to be AMP.
Try the basic HTML verson of Gmail -- it loads about 5-10X faster than the AJAX version.
> Less JavaScript bloat, I think. AMP is mostly static content.
That's actually completely untrue. Every AMP component is a web component and requires JavaScript in order to run at all. And many have their own .js file powering it. You literally can't use an <img> tag on an AMP page. You have to use <amp-img>, which has a JS dependency.
OP is right, the primary reason AMP is fast is because Google is preloading the page in the background. AMP pages themselves aren't all that static, or really all that bandwidth efficient.
You're correct. No js bloat. In order to load Js files it has to be in accordance with the AMP spec and they have a strict list of js you can load.
Re:AMP for email is bad
by manigandham on Sunday June 23, 2019 @09:11PM
(#20259796)
Or the site you're already on: HN.
Every AMP link i click on google loads crazy fast. I don't know why the implementation details or google's incentivizing it would make this not count for some reason.
I don't like what amp is doing to the web either but the user experience is really good, pages do load much quicker than your average page and I find myself preferring them a lot over the uncertainty and frustration when you click other links on a bad connection